No, Clinton does not want to ‘slow down our economy’

ABC News’ Jake Tapper has caused quite a stir with an item this morning about a speech Bill Clinton delivered yesterday in Denver.

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.”

At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? “Slow down our economy”?

I don’t really think there’s much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy….So was this a moment of candor?

Actually, no, it’s a moment taken out of context in such a way as to change the meaning of the sentence. Consider what Clinton actually said.

“And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada — the rich counties — would say, ‘OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.’ We could do that.

But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world’s fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.”

Tapper appears to have gotten the story backwards. He wrote that Clinton “characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: ‘We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.'” Clinton actually argued the opposite.

But Tapper’s mistake is spreading quickly.

The Republican National Committee, among others, are making hay of the ABC report. “Senator Clinton’s campaign now says we must ‘slow down the economy’ to stop global warming,” said Alex Conant, RNC Spokesman. “Clinton needs to come back to Earth. Her ‘tax-it, spend-it, regulate-it’ attitude would really bring the economy crashing down.”

Please. How misleading was Tapper’s report? Far-right blogs are criticizing it. The Corner’s Iain Murray wrote:

[The ABC] video is actually (and again, I can’t believe I’m saying this) really unfair to Bill Clinton. The biter bit, you may say, but I don’t believe this sort of manipulation by the media is in any way helpful. The clip is out of context…. That’s not good journalism in any sense.

Hot Air added:

I have to say, as much as I loathe Billy Jeff and all, ABC is misrepresenting what he said. Sure, he uttered the line about slowing down the economy, but he followed that with an explanation of why that’s a bad idea…. The bottom line is that, for whatever reason, ABC actually played Clinton’s “slow down the economy” line unfairly.

When conservative bloggers are defending Bill Clinton against bad journalism, you know the journalism has to be really bad.

Nevertheless, I’m afraid with the RNC and Townhall.com pushing the bogus story line, we may be looking at media malpractice along the lines of “inventing the Internet.” How soon until pundits are simply asserting, as fact, the notion that Bill Clinton wants to “slow down our economy”?

Some evasive talking putz for McCain’s campaign was parroting the same nonsense earlier today. I guess the lying will increase now that they only have Romney, Clinton, and Obama to “straight talk” about.

  • It feels really weird to have media distortions on my side for once. (I support Obama over Clinton strongly)

    I can’t say I like them any better though.

  • Wow. Between this and the false “Obama losing his temper” piece they ran last week, ABC News is quickly jettisoning any shred of journalistic integrity they once possessed.

  • This is exactly why politicians should stay away from sarcasm. We can’t trust ‘journalists’ to include their snark tags.

  • and i thought abc touted tapper as an “investigative journalist”. i’d say he’s neither

  • I find this distortion to be absolutely deplorable. The media is comprised of a bunch of idiots clamoring for getting the catchiest headline. However low they have stooped in the past, they will undoubtedly stoop lower and lower still with each new election cycle. There are no ethics left in the media at large. Disgusting.

    And, I should mention, I’m an Obama supporter! This type of mis-characterization of facts and quotations goes far beyond one candidate. We should all be united in opposing this asinine practice.

  • We will be hearing this distortion repeated many times from now through next November – and beyond.

    From the Republican campaign manual:

    “A lie told often enough becomes truth.” – V. I. Lenin

  • Yeah, they blew it, maybe intentionally. However, being coy and cleaver in speaking can wind up in a negative ad –fairly or not.

  • “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”

    I don’t think this is going to work anymore. The internet, and particularly blogs like this one, are giving lies a harder time. I think the blatantly, demonstrably false things told about Gore, for example, wouldn’t fly as well this time.

    Look at how many comments on the CONSERVATIVE Townhall blog are correcting Ham’s regurgitation:

    http://www.townhall.com/blog/default.aspx?mode=post&g=ed1bfb6d-803e-49f2-97a3-0cbc11a3a9d5&comments=true&submitted=truee656266e-f570-4a5a-92cd-3ce280e2a03a

  • “…prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.”

    I am all for that.. But where’s the proof that tactics that fight global warning are going to in fact “create more jobs with a sustainable economy.”

  • no, jake tapper didn’t make a mistake: he did that deliberately.

    the question is why he has a job, not how did he make such a mistake.

  • Tamalak said: It feels really weird to have media distortions on my side for once. (I support Obama over Clinton strongly).

    What? Do you realize how easy it is for the purveyors of lies and distortions to turn this into Democrats want to “slow down our economy? And how will your happy little Obama heart be feeling about a distortion then?

    Your comment reminds me of Barbara Bush condescendingly opining that this (living in the Metrodome after Katrina) was really working out very well, because they were poor, anyway.

  • So if “ABC News’ Senior National Correspondent based in the network’s Washington bureau” can be so freaking stupid, what does that say about the network?

    The way he’s “not certain” what Clinton meant is hilarious:

    …I don’t really think there’s much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy….So was this a moment of candor?

    He went on to say that his the U.S. — and those countries that have committed to reducing greenhouse gases — could ultimately increase jobs and raise wages with a good energy plan..

    So there was something of a contradiction there.

    Or perhaps he mis-spoke.

    Or perhaps this characterization was a description of what would happen if there isn’t a worldwide effort…I’m not quite certain.

    He then points the reader to the video, which if he actually watched it he would be certain to see that he is indeed unworthy to be the Senior National Correspondent for the National Enquirer. After that he includes the text of the statement, which proves what an idiot he is. He adds an update which criticizes the RNC for being only slightly stupider than he is.

    UPDATE: Not so difficult to predict — the RNC just issued a statement in response to the former President’s comment.

    “Senator Clinton’s campaign now says we must ‘slow down the economy’ to stop global warming,” said Alex Conant, RNC Spokesman. “Clinton needs to come back to Earth. Her ‘tax-it, spend-it, regulate-it’ attitude would really bring the economy crashing down. No amount of special effects will hide Clinton’s liberal record.”

    Jesus, what a doofus.

    I predict that page will be wiped clean pretty soon.

  • What? Do you realize how easy it is for the purveyors of lies and distortions to turn this into Democrats want to “slow down our economy? And how will your happy little Obama heart be feeling about a distortion then?

    Woa woa, Anne. Relax. I said it felt weird and I didn’t like it. That’s not the same as happy. I went to Townhall just now to defend Clinton against these distortions.

  • is someone else using anne’s name to post their comments? her posts don’t sound like they used to……..

  • HEADLINES:

    Obama raises $32 MILLION in January 2008 alone.

    Rasmussen National Poll – Clinton only up by 3 pts

    Gallup National Poll – Clinton only up by 4 pts.

  • I guess JRS will stamp his feet really hard if we can’t save the planet and make as much money as we used to back when we were destroying the planet. Because what good is a planet if you can’t make tons of money?

    Did you finally get past denial, JR? You sound like you’re entering either anger or bargaining, right along with GWB.

    Time for the people like JRS to sit down, shut up, and let the smart people who saw the problem long ago fix it. They’ve got zero credibility on the issue, and all the foot stamping in the world won’t give them any.

  • Racer, sweetheart, I’m not really the one who sounds “angry” and I never denied the globe was warming…

  • As far as I’m concerned, media distortions or lies or whatever it is you want to call it when reporters or editors take something we would all clearly understand if we saw or heard ot for ourselves, in its entirety, and make it into something else, are inexcusable.

    And this happens day after day after day. A snippet here, a sound-bite there, and one’s words lose their context and meaning and that then rests in the hands of someone who is in control of what a majority of people see and hear.

    If Jake Tapper is too stupid to understand what Bill Clinton said, he should have let Clinton’s entire comment be heard; what an incompetent tool.

    I hope Jakie got some extra snausages from the honchos at ABC for that one. Woof!

  • Surely none of us are surprised. This is the state we find ourselves in . We “bite” the sound bite. It’s just become more obvious during the Primary season. This is exactly what Bill Clinton was talking about to the reporter last week. They should be ashamed as to how they want to drive the dialog amongst voters. However, I won’t wait until they develop a conscious. Blogs are becoming just as bad. Read some of the comments and you can tell how many “bite”.

  • Hmmm. Who’s running for president again? Kind of deals Hillary a double blow, doesn’t it? One is more subtle. Why does the media hate her so much? Why do liberals hate her? Remind me again.

    Clinton (Bill) had a perfect opportunity to explain where those jobs would come from, but apparently decided not to. And the Democrats in general have shied away from it, and I don’t know why. Global warming and peak oil are like Siamese twins. We’ve got to solve both. But nobody talks about the latter. Ironically, the solution to all our problems is the solution to peak oil. Get off fossil fuels, which we have to do eventually, and there will be no more carbon emissions. Why doesn’t any Democrat (aside from Jay Inslee) come forward with a bold plan to develop alternative energy through a Manhattan-like project? What are they afraid of? We can waste a trillion on the war in Iraq, or 150 billion on silly tax rebates, but can’t invest anything meaningful in alternative energy?

    Someone should also have the guts to point out that if it came to slowing down the economy, that would have to be done. That ought to spur interest in moving pronto toward solutions. Haven’t we had enough foot dragging on this? Or don’t we believe, deep down, that global warming is really that serious?

    I just don’t get it. A massive public investment into alternative energy would create zillions of jobs, stimulate the economy, solve both the global warming and peak oil crises, and solve the problem of getting developing nations, particularly India and China, to come aboard, because they would switch to alternative energy if it were available. What we need to do is right in front of us, but everybody in the world, except for Rep Jay Inslee and me, seems to know some secret reason that we can’t do that.

  • People talk about how the Clintons attack just like the Republicans do. This is a classic Republican attack – fee some oppo research to a friendly (and stupid) reporter who publishes it. Then the RNC pushes it out to friendly conservative outlets who repeat it endlessly until it becomes accepted as “true”. No fingerprints back to the RNC.

  • “Someone should also have the guts to point out that if it came to slowing down the economy, that would have to be done.”

    Are you suggesting that a politician should point out there are significant risks and near-term costs associated with such a strategy and open themselves up for criticism??? Come on, hark… get back to reality! 🙂

  • Okie at 7

    I went to Google and discovered many people besides Lenin have made similar statements. Most notably, Josef Goebbels.

  • is someone else using anne’s name to post their comments? her posts don’t sound like they used to……..

    huh. i wonder if going to a lot of work to be seen — and repeatedly complimented –as a positive contributor here over a long period of time only to have all of her comments anymore met with childish, closed-minded ad hominem’s like “monster” would have anything to do with it?

    nice little community ya had here; shame a handful of faoming at the mouth Obama-ists have decided its their private sandbox, no Clinton supporters tolerated.

  • But where’s the proof that tactics that fight global warning are going to in fact “create more jobs with a sustainable economy.”

    Show us some concrete proof that it won’t.

    See? I can play that game!

    😉

    More seriously, though, one can use the concept of “logical reasoning” to conclude that creating an entire new industry will, in fact, create new jobs. You know, horse buggy makers lamented how the automobile would put them out of business and cost lots of folks their jobs without any proof they’d be replaced.

    How’d that turn out?

  • OK, maybe the last few weeks have made me cynical, but I can’t shake the suspicion that if Obama had been mischaracterized in this way, Hillary would have already cut an attack ad parroting the same right-wing talking points the RNC is using.

  • So ABC pulls off a really sloppy reporting job that can intentionally or inadvertently harm a presidential candidate … and what price is ABC to pay for its blunder? No one will lose a job and no one will think anything less of ABC News, not that it’s possible to anymore. There’s no incentive for the “news” to be accurate or anything other than manipulative. It would be nice if we had an FCC that could keep the media honest, or at least prevent them from being completely dishonest.

  • “More seriously, though, one can use the concept of “logical reasoning” to conclude that creating an entire new industry will, in fact, create new jobs.”

    That is true, if the new technology invented is more efficient/cost effective than existing technology and isn’t subsidized by the government in the long run. Look at the ethanol industry as an example of how things should not be done.

    My whole argument has been to avoid the temptation of making radical decisions that have enormous near term cost without promise of long-term benefit.

  • Zeitgeist, I honestly don’t see where you’re coming from– Tamalak said that he/she did not like seeing the attack against Clinton, despite being an Obama supporter. And I articulated the same sentiment. I have not seen anyone on this thread rejoicing over the mis-characterization of Bill Clinton’s words; the overall sentiment here seems to be “the media is stupid,” not “Hillary sucks.” Regardless as to which of the Democratic candidates we support, I think it’s safe to say that we are united against a dishonest and disingenuous media. No need to accuse anyone of being “foaming at the mouth Obama-ists” in a “private sandbox”– it is the media that foams at the mouth and fouls up everyone’s proverbial “sandbox,” so to speak. With that being the case, I would suggest that you turn your anger toward the media, rather than toward all of us on this thread.

  • That is true, if the new technology invented is more efficient/cost effective than existing technology and isn’t subsidized by the government in the long run. Look at the ethanol industry as an example of how things should not be done.

    100% true — the way they’re going about developing ethanol is clinically retarded, leading to rising food costs, tons of wasted acreage, and quite possibly lead to more environmental damage than necessary.

    What I’d love to see is for India, China and the U.S. get together in a public/private partnership to come up with new ideas, technologies and resources.

    Those are the three biggest polluters, and have the most resources available to come up with the solution. Add in a prize of some sort (kinda like the one for private space travel) and I bet we’d have affordable, workable, and reliable alternatives within a decade.

  • nice little community ya had here; shame a handful of faoming at the mouth Obama-ists have decided its their private sandbox, no Clinton supporters tolerated.

    I’ve seen a lot of invective thrown both ways, zeitgeist — It’s not just Obama fans slamming Clinton, but Clinton fans slamming Obama as well.

    Quite frankly, it’s freakin’ sad.

    Each and every single one of us want the same thing: Someone other than any of the Republicans. Period. And since Clinton and Obama have very similar positions on most issues, it comes down to a few things.

    Some folks will never, ever forgive Hillary for her Iraq vote.

    Some folks will never, ever think Obama is tough enough.

    Some folks will never, ever support a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton line of presidents.

    Some folks will never, ever support someone who votes “Present” rather than taking a stand.

    Some folks will never, ever support a woman.

    Some folks will never, ever support an African American.

    But … it’s just … well, it seems as though almsot all of those things are horseshit — just labels applied to make one feel better about his or her choice.

    Yes, Hillary was –and has been recently — wrong about Iraq and Iran. But, quite frankly, I really don’t see her wanting to do what McCain does: keep us there forever while also going after Iran. She may be a bit mushy on timetables and withdrawal, but I honestly think she is such because she doesn’t have all the info. Only Bush Co. does as of right now and it will take the new Prez a while to sort it out. Can she motivate the Republican base? For sure. But that’s a silly reason to vote against her, IMHO, because they will find something to rile themselves up regardless.

    Yes, Obama was — and has been recently — way too vague in a lot of his talk. It sure sounds amazing and can be incredibly inspirational, but great rhetoric does not a great leader make. But, quite frankly, I don’t see that as an issue since he does have specifics on his site. His goal when speaking is to energize, inspire and motivate people to support him. I see no issue with having an over-reaching theme that frames everything else. And I also don’t see his willingness to work together as weakness — one can listen to one’s enemies without caving into them, and one certainly cannot govern such a diverse country and government with the petulance of a nap-needing toddler (see: Bush, George W., for results).

    So how’s about we all take some deep breaths?

    How’s about we all realize that, yes, we may disagree on a few bits here and there, but no, we need not destroy each other while discussing them?

    And how’s about we stop with the insults hurled at our fellow liberals/progressives/Democrats?

    Besides, Seaberry and AJS make for much easier targets.

    🙂

    (Wow … sorry for the “CAN’T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?!?!” thesis. Sheesh … )

  • Caped, I wasn’t referring to this thread, nor to you or Tamalak. just bill noted that Anne’s posts (plural, presumably more generalized than just this thread) dont sound like they used to. Certainly I can’t speak for Anne. But I have seen a week or two worth of a small handful of pro-Obama commenters slam Anne every which way, ridicule her position, call her names, etc. hardly an atmosphere that encourages contribution, so I wouldn’t find it surprising if her tone has changed. to your credit, you (and dajafi and doubtful and many others) haven’t done so. but if you haven’t seen it from others, i’d be willing to point it out for you. there are many, many examples.

  • just bill – it’s not an imposter – it’s me. A cranky, irritated, impatient and annoyed me – but definitely me.

    I am at the point where I am hard-pressed to understand how it is Obama plans to unite people across party lines and work together without all that partisan bitterness when his own supporters – not all of them, but a number who seem to have planted themselves here of late – will not even engage in open-minded discussion about the issues, about his record, about the irrationality of their pure hatred for Hillary Clinton. I’m sorry, but this “talk to the hand” tactic is way too reminiscent of the last 7 years.

    I’m sick of reading the tired, old, right-wing talking points about Clinton by people who have no earthly clue what kinds of actual work this woman has been involved in for many years, and which they are not willing to give her any credit for. Maybe they fear that her work on behalf of children and families and women would dwarf their beloved candidate’s community organizing – I don’t know – but it reveals many of them to be willingly ignorant just to feel superior.

    I think many of the Hillary-haters are doing their candidate a huge disservice, but far be it from me to tell them that they are turning off those – like me – who would like to be excited about a candidate now that Edwards is out of the race.

    Maybe if they opened their minds to the things we all actually have in common – you know, in the spirit of Obama, who wants us all to get along – we might end up a stronger Democratic party, instead of on artificially opposite sides.

    I have TONS of reservations about Clinton, but it annoys the crap out of me to see her reduced to being nothing more than a shrill and emasculating harpy, while Obama is expected to be treated as exempt from negativity of any kind, and even questions are treated as kryptonite sure to zap his powers if allowed beyond the breach.

    Want to see some interesting questions? Go look at this: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/01/30/i-have-questions-for-barack-obama/

  • Mark D, I think that is a false equivalence like the media looking at Rep. Jefferson and saying both parties have a corruption problem.

    At a personal level, I do not believe you could show me nearly as many dismissive, derogatory or name calling posts directed at Obama supporters as at Clinton supporters. At a political level, I have not seen a single Clinton supporter say that they would withhold support from Obama or suggest they’d just as soon vote Republican – we all know that is not true in the other direction.

    All of threads devolve into the same handful of Obama supporters trying to bully instead of discuss, and there is no point in trying to debate in those circumstances. Better things to do and all.

  • All of threads devolve into the same handful of Obama supporters trying to bully instead of discuss, and there is no point in trying to debate in those circumstances. Better things to do and all.

    Well, not sure I’d say “all” of them do, but I have noticed quite a few.

    And you’re also right that some of the Obama folks are way, way too against Hillary.

    It’s kinda ironic, though — Obama talks about unity and hope and reasonable discourse, while some of his supporters divide and deride and insult.

    I don’t get it.

  • Anne – I appreciate your explanation. I don’t entirely blame you for feeling attacked recently. I do feel however that you’ve gone out of your way to be anti-Obama, and anti-anyone who supports him. You have definitely pushed memes that are flatly untrue (that the “Present” votes in Illinois Senate are evidence of not taking a stand – FALSE, that he “skipped” Kyl-Lieberman to avoid taking a stand- FALSE, that he did not stand clearly against Iraq invasion – FALSE). You’ve also called us naive, fools, and worse for feeling inspired by Obama’s vision.

    And I think at comment 15, you willfully twisted Tamalak’s comment out of context. So you could bash Obama. Again.

    This is just one guy’s opinion, but it severely undercuts your position that it’s Obama supporters who are divisive.

    I want supporters of both candidates here. Actually, I want *thoughtful* supporters of *all* candidates here. I’ve learned a lot. Just don’t pretend you’re not throwing stones.

  • I’ll say it again. I haven’t heard this kind of rancor towards Hillary Clinton since Karl Rove. This Tapper comment is a classic “Election 2008” statement to put her in a bad light. It will circulate all over and get reapeated without clarification.

    For the Obama supporters here … you need to understand a few things.

    Women have been kicked in the head repeatedly in the last 30 years. Hillary Clinton is a great example. She works her butt off, does the job of three people over and over and over again in her life. Educates herself on every major issue that affects this country. Makes sure she is prepared for the most important job or her life … and then … a rising star via affirmative action — so to speak, comes in and sweeps the country off their feet. And “the people” say, sorry, you are old, tired news … we want a new face who talks nice. It’s disheartening.

    People have said to me … we would support a woman but not this one. They say this is all about Bill. They say they are one in the same person and you only get one 8 year stint as president.

    My response:
    What other woman? Someone told me Nancy Pelosi … she’ll be 72 in 8 years. What other woman? No names. Evidently the Governor of Kansas is suddenly someone important … never heard of her until the SOTU comeback … what was that? And then she gets to endorse Obama the next day. Talk about one-sided politics.
    How about Michelle Obama. Do you think she’ll know a bit about how the govt. runs after her stint as first Lady. You are damn right she will. But, wait … see the last reason to keep Hillary out … evidently if you are married to a president … you no longer get to be an individual, elligible to run for the presidency.

    This is all about Bill: Like Hillary is doing this for Bill! GIVE ME A BREAK. She owes him nothing and I do not believe for one minute she is doing this so Bill can be a pseudo-president. She wants to lead this country out of its morasse and knows she can do it.

    They are one in the same person … this is a dynasty. ARe you and your spouse or significant other one in the same person? Did you become a super-organism when you joined him/her? Or, are you still two separate people from the two families you came from. Is a poor boy from the South … the same as a middle class girl from a midwest supburb? Is a Clinton the same as a Rodham? My husband and I have very different backgrounds but we share similar views on many things. We are still very different .. our work ethic is different, how we approach and solve problems is very different, how we organize our lives is very different. Please stop saying HIllary is just like Bill. She is not.

  • Before Obama refers to building a bridge back to the 20th Century he should get off the bridge to Chappaquiddick

  • The fact of the matter is that politicians aren’t going to solve global warming; the people, in innumerable small ways are going to have solve that problem. I think it should start with rethinking the problem. When Al Gore accepted the Nobel Prize, he used the metaphor of a fever. Its an excellent metaphor…if you follow the logic. A fever is a symptom. You may, in fact, die from the fever, but the the fever can be reduced without curing the causative agent…and the patient can still die.

    So maybe we need to start looking at the disease, because fighting the symptom has a host of difficulties associated with it. The disease, in my opinion, is waste. Greenhouse gasses are waste products, but that is far from the only way in which we waste. We currently reckon our efficiency in terms of economics. That is, your business is efficient if you can produce widget A for the least amount and sell it for the highest amount.

    If you measure our economy in terms of resource use and waste, it is horribly inefficient (by some measures no better than 20% efficient); consequently, the true costs of those are generally externalized. It is economically efficient to centralize the production of everything from food to consumer goods to power generation. (again, if you externalize a great many of the costs) But centralization is inefficient measured any other way.

    There are jobs to be created, without imagining some brave new, green technological world. (Which is not to say that we shouldn’t be investing and working towards that world.) Decentralize. In a way, we may be lucky that our manufacturing base is gone because it allows us to rebuild it. If a city can support a giant Ikea, then how many smaller furniture factories can it also support?

    Our manufacturing/consumer economy of the previous century was successful when the guy who was building the cars spent his paycheck to buy a washing machine built by some other guy. No, it would not be as cheap to buy a piece of furniture made here as opposed to the one made in China. On the other hand, if more people had jobs that paid well that wouldn’t be so much of an issue.

    And when products are designed, it would behoove us to think a little differently about the process. For example, how do you design the manufacturing process and choose the inputs so that the waste is capable of forming the input of another process? There’s long term economic efficiency there because rather than paying for waste disposal, someone else would be willing to pay for your waste.

    Finally, and i know that i’ve gone on and on…i’m sorry, we need to think about decentralizing power generation. We’re a long ways off from replacing fossil fuel power generation with renewable resources if we plan to keep everything the same except the mode of generation. Germany’s new building code dictates that every new building must supply 25% of its own power. That’s the way to attack this. One, because it is more realistic. Two, because a whole lot of people would be needed to build, install, and maintain decentralized power. And three, because every decrease in grid load reduces infrastructure costs and makes converting centralized generating plants easier.

    Ok, sorry…and if you made it to the end, thanks for listening.

  • first time comment

    i think a lot of obama internet posters are viral enthusiasts trying to create an illusion of momentum. fervor for personality is what drives them. i noticed a while back that they are just like paul supporters. not all of them, but more than enough.

    not to pick on any individual, but this comment is a prime example of the kind of thing that leaves me wondering what obama is claiming to transcend:

    “OK, maybe the last few weeks have made me cynical, but I can’t shake the suspicion that if Obama had been mischaracterized in this way, Hillary would have already cut an attack ad parroting the same right-wing talking points the RNC is using.”

    –January 31st, 2008 at 3:40 pm, Zorro for the Common Good

    aside from completely rejecting the notion that senator clinton would do such a thing in the first place, the first thing that comes to mind is why doesn’t obama defend clinton against this kind of deliberate falsehood? i know it may sound strange to suggest one rival defending another, but tapper’s piece is a blatant untruth. obama could do himself a world of good by standing up to the media even and especially when they falsely attack his opponents. that is precisely what our democracy is lacking, the desire for truth over political advantage. granted this is just one example, but it seems clear to me that obama does not realize that like it or not, he is in the same boat with clinton when it comes to the media. they will not spare him in the least when the time comes this summer if he is the nominee. the media is the problem. democrats sticking for the truth and for each other strikes me as exactly the kind of transformation and transcenance we so desperately need, which obama could provide, yet which he fails to recognize (bad) or act upon (worse).

    tapper, without question, should be fired.

  • on the dynasty thing…

    it is so at odds with the facts. you cannot have a dynasty in an elective system. either the system is corrupt, or the definition of dynasty is poorly (or deliberately?) mis/understood. the dynasty argument can only be used against clinton, imho, if the election comes down to a narrow difference in a key state which is kicked to the high court which had a majority largely appointed by the first president clinton which then reached a dubious conclusion to shut down the process and give her the office. if she wins a free election fair and square, by definition there is no dynasty. in the case of the bushes, however, the argument for corruption is much more plausible. with clinton, this is clearly not the case.

    i think most people are really trying to say they don’t want to hear the media b.s. about another clinton for another eight years, which is not only patently unfair to clinton, but shows their lack of recognition of the true problem, which is again not hillary clinton but the media’s corrupt willingness to lie about her and her husband repeatedly, consistently, and shamelessly. again, it is patently unfair to penalize hillary clinton for the behavior of the media. but this is just speculation on my part as to why people are making this argument against clinton.

  • English Teacher: The media is repeating the same story the Republicans told us about Hillary Clinton … they are too lazy, unprofessional, biased, sensation-hungry to report in a fair and unbiased way.

    I want to know how Obama is going to do the things he says he will do. I want someone to ask him, require him to come up with specifics the way Hillary has. I hope this debate has moderator that asks real questions.

    I look forward to this debate … to see if Obama can mannage against a much better debator IMO … without Edwards to filter things.

    DEbates are important. I believe that Al Gore lost the election (I know he didn’t really lose it) in his final couple debates with Bush. Instead of looking smart he looked like a smart-alick who scoffed at his dense opponent … Bush looked dense but pittyable. Is that a word?

  • The “dynasty thing” is at odds with the facts?

    If Hillary Clinton were Hillary Jones, she would have had an admirable career and might very well be *qualified*, but she would not be a leading candidate for President.

    Her presidency, should it happen, would be extraordinarily influenced by Bill, and so many of us would see it as a sort of “restoration”. The “family brand” thing has played out pretty poorly with the Bushes. Many of us don’t want to see the Democrats go down a similar road (don’t get me wrong, president Hillary would still be infinitely better than W).

    I think you’re mistaken. It can happen in an electoral system. Name familiarity is huge in politics.

  • Sorry to Swan-Post, but I wanted to second this thought (having disagreed with a different English Teacher point):

    the first thing that comes to mind is why doesn’t obama defend clinton against this kind of deliberate falsehood? i know it may sound strange to suggest one rival defending another, but tapper’s piece is a blatant untruth. obama could do himself a world of good by standing up to the media even and especially when they falsely attack his opponents

    That is, I second it if the story swirls up into any significance. Which I think is likely.

  • but is not the same thing as a dynasty. a dynasty is rule by a family. that’s it. the hohenzollern’s were a dynasty. romanov’s, tudor’s, stewarts, etc. a dynasty is when the legal power of controlling the state is in the hands of a single family. i am not rejecting the notion that you don’t want a husband and wife to each be president. i don’t object to the sentiment. but it is by definition not a dynasty. name recognition is not real control. the fact that obama is threatening to win the primary itself is proof that dynasty is not the word you seek unless you want to employ the negative connotations that come with it regardless of whether it is inaccurate.

    sorry, i object to word because i think it is dishonest. if clinton wins, it will still not be a dynasty. you are using the word because there is a negative connotation. but is inaccurate bordering on duplicitous. sorry, just the way i see it.

  • sorry, shouldn’t have said “you” to imply you specifically short fuse. i should have said “i think the word being applied in this context is dishonest”. i didn’t mean to make it sound like you personally were being dishonest, which is kind of what i said. sorry about that one.

  • short fuse said:

    Anne – I appreciate your explanation. I don’t entirely blame you for feeling attacked recently. I do feel however that you’ve gone out of your way to be anti-Obama, and anti-anyone who supports him. You have definitely pushed memes that are flatly untrue (that the “Present” votes in Illinois Senate are evidence of not taking a stand – FALSE, that he “skipped” Kyl-Lieberman to avoid taking a stand- FALSE, that he did not stand clearly against Iraq invasion – FALSE). You’ve also called us naive, fools, and worse for feeling inspired by Obama’s vision.

    It’s like some of us are from Mars and some are from Venus…what some people – including you – seem to have a hard time with is accepting – or even understanding – that none of us has control over how other people perceive our actions – or our words.

    I never did any of those things you have accused me of. I suggested that his present votes could be construed as not taking a stand – in fact, I provided the exchange among the three candidates on that issue of accountability for their votes. So, Obama had an explanation – although I should tell you that Bonnie Grabenhofer, who is the president of Illinois NOW has come out and said that voting “present” on the anti-choice bills was not a position it supported, and that Lorna Brett, the woman who appears in the video on Obama’s website saying that it was an accepted position, hasn’t been a member of Illinois NOW since 1999, and was not there when they were lobbying against these bills – but he cannot control the perception.

    Perception was the issue on Kyl-Lieberman, as well. He was one of only two Senators who missed the vote, and again – he has an explanation, but he still has no control over the conclusions people draw from his absence.

    Finally, I never said he did not stand firmly against the invasion of Iraq – I have on multiple occasions acknowledged that he gave a speech in opposition to the war, but what I have also pointed out is that once he got to the Senate, his voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton’s. It is what it is, and the fact that he wants people to believe that his opposition to the war has been consistent has nothing to do with how people perceive his various comments and his voting record.

    And I think at comment 15, you willfully twisted Tamalak’s comment out of context. So you could bash Obama. Again.

    Um, no. I may have not read Tamalak’s comment the way he intended it, but that wasn’t me “willfully twisting” anything. I have no idea who you are, so I kind of doubt you could possibly know me well enough to assume you understand what happened there. And this is a classic example of how I perceived Tamalak’s comment, and how you perceived my response. The words are out there, and that’s the last you have any control over them.

    This is just one guy’s opinion, but it severely undercuts your position that it’s Obama supporters who are divisive.

    I want supporters of both candidates here. Actually, I want *thoughtful* supporters of *all* candidates here. I’ve learned a lot. Just don’t pretend you’re not throwing stones.

    If your failure to correctly process my comments as I intended them is because I have failed to communicate clearly, all I can say is – such are the limitations of language. If we were all in an actual room, able to see each other, hear the tone in our various voices – much of this would be a lot easier.

  • Anne–
    What you’re describing is an issue as old as the Internet: How to take words on a screen, written by people who have never met, whose intentions and beliefs are not known, and interpreting them correctly.

    And when that includes folks like me, who a times do not convey their thoughts well enough — even us professional writers suffer from that occasionally — and give the wrong impression or take the wrong tack, and it gets worse.

    Add in the rancor and heightened sensitivity that surrounds our modern politics and it gets downright ugly.

    I think all of us CB regulars should really try harder to give each other the benefit of the doubt on stuff like this.

    Sure, there’ll be some n00bs, the passers-by, the rightwing trolls (which I now agree JRS is not — dude’s wildly wrong on nearly everything, but seems okay enough 😉 ) and the sparse posters. Those we can all deal with as they come and go.

    But there are about 30 – 40 or so of us here who have read enough of each other’s comments to know basically where we stand, and we really all should perhaps try a bit harder to be less quick to judge and jump on a comment from one of those regulars.

    Again, just my attempt at unity around here. Guess I’ve been watching too many Obama speeches or something.*

    😉

    (I missed tonight’s debate, so I hope it wasn’t an attack fest.)

  • And when that includes folks like me, who a times do not convey their thoughts well enough …

    And who, at times, has lots of typos in his posts …

    Um … cold hands. Yep, that’s it. Beer’s got nothin’ to do with the mistakes. No sir …

    🙂

  • Funny, is it just me or does anyone else find this ironic. Of course the report is horrible journalism and ths quote is horrendously taken out of context. But what’s funny is…isn’t that EXACTLY what Hillary did to Obama in the South Carolina debate when she took his quote about Reagan and Republican ideas completely out of context to use against him? I believe it is.

  • This reminds me of the “fairy tale” quote mess.
    Clinton said that Obama’s reputation as an anti-war guy was a fairy tale. He mentioned that Obama has voted consistently to fund the war. (He could also have mentioned, but didn’t, that Obama campaigned for Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont in the democratic primary in Connecticut!)

    The press, mainstream as well as “liberal” outlets, reported his statement as one in which he characterized Obama’s entire campaign for President as a fairy tale. From that misrepresentation, Bill Clinton began to be characterized as a racist. From that, Senator Clinton was characterized as a person lacking in racial sensitivity.

    At this point in time it seems as if it’s politically incorrect for anyone to say anything good about either President Clinton or Senator Clinton. Even endorsements for Hillary Clinton go out of their way to say what a swell fellow Obama is…how gifted…and so on.

    We are being manipulated, folks.

  • Why is anybody surprised by Jake Tapper’s twisting of someone else’s words. He works for disney which has distorted, sanitized and twisted everything it’s ever done to suit itself, it’s completely beyond their ability to stay with the authors words and intent.

  • Folks,

    Clinton is being perfectly Clintonesqe. He is claiming that our economy and other rich ones need to be slowed to “save the planet”, but that the poor countries will not agree to such a plan for it is not in the best interest of their citizens. Therefore, for this to work he claims the rich countries must “convince” the poor countries that more jobs and wealth will be created by “slowing” their economy down as well. But there is no proof or experience that slowing down the economy will create more jobs or wealth, let alone help combat global warming. He is clearly saying that economies need to be slowed to leave the planet cleaner for our grandchildren. ABC is correct in its interpretation of his comments.

  • Do people try to live up to their names ? Someone should study that. I looked up Jacob ( Jake= Jacob) and found that it means “The Supplanter” ( has to do with Jacob in the Bible being born holding his twin brother’s heel ) Then I looked up “supplant” – #1 def. (Merriam-Webster)- To supercede (another) especially by force or TREACHERY . Wow.I think if I was Jake Tapper’s boss I would be keeping a close eye on him. SOMEONE should be watching this guy and checking his work !

  • Media distortions are nothing new in this campaign. The media, especially CNN, is strongly biased in favor of Obama. The media loves Obama because of his ability to generate ratings.

    All of the media distortions I have seen have been in favor of Obama and to the detriment of Clinton.

    The press has forfeited its position as the essential, and unbiased provider of news. I for one very much resent the media’s assumption that we, the American people, are not smart enough to see through their bias and distortions.

    What we need in this election is a strong backlash against the press. They want to shove Obama down our throats. Well, let’s just vote NO to Obama.

  • OK. Check this out. I live in Geneva, Switz. A non-American guy who I play basketball with asked me if I had been checking out the election coverage back home. I said yes. He followed with how upset that he was with Bill Clinton, ‘his hero”, for being ‘so racist against Obama’. I said to take the ‘reporting’ with a big heap of salt and he should check out blogs in addition to CNN, FOX, ABC, etc.. He said that he does. I was suprised but more suprised by this…he said he also reads the comments and he concluded that because of Bill/Hill ‘s comments and the comments about them that Bill/Hill was evil, dispicable, dishonest, racist and Hillary is unfit to become president…and since he and ‘everyone’ else is so excited about OB that he is certainly the better choice.

    I didn’t want to do it but I did anyway. I asked him what else has Hillary done that makes her so evil and unpleasant. He said he didn’t know of anything specifically but there must be really something about her since there were so many people, OB supporters, who said they would refuse to vote for her if she was nominated. I told him there’s more…the media has it’s own interest at heart and not the public’s when it come to ‘reporting'(hyping) up news. I said it can only work so well because there are so many folks who react to it so readily and easliy, whether there responses are in the form of a comment on a blog or votes for GWBush because Al Gore is a smartass, know-it-all exaggerater who invented the internet. They don’t know they are being manipulated and used. I knew I was losing him at that point so I tried to engage his sense of logic when I said, that personally, I would rather see HRC get the nod and OB get the VP because of Hill/Bill’s collective politic playing experience in fighting back successfully against the professional shit throwers. He could learn how to deal with it more effectively during the toughest times. (Side note, Europe knows a U.S. recession and world wide slow down is it’s way…the U.S., still debating whether it’s the bottom of the housing market yet.) I haven’t seen that OB has had to deal with anything approaching the full tilt harangue, political strafing that the Clintons have dealt with and deal with more adeptly than most. (Especially ‘considering that they’re not originally political class folks anyway’, re- Broder, David S.) He’s had it relatively quite easy. Not much of a fight for his seat in Illinois or Washington. No Mellon-Scaife supported microscopic scrutiny of his political past, or his own dedicated right wing noise machine(HRC called it, but she was just called loony for calling it) dedicated to persistently and systematically affront their collective character, etc.. I knew I definitely lost him at that point. He said it made not sense to him nor any difference. Hill/Bill is evil and OB is not. I just sighed, not because he didn’t agree with me but he didn’t think about it or even hesitate to think about it. It was like talking to one of Bush’s 25 percenter’s. In Switzerland for god’s sakes.

  • Well, look. You’ve got this all wrong. It’s the same thing as with Gore’s “I invented the Internet” claim. It’s not that he said it; it’s that he could have said it, and people believed it because it’s the kind of thing they think he could have said, and since his way of presenting himself didn’t stop them from believing he could have–and therefore must have–said it when we kept saying over and over and over again that he said it, it’s his own fault that people believe it. Therefore he is responsible for saying it. In fact that means it’s, you know, true. In a truthiness sort of way.

    -The Media

  • Or you could say that he failed to not say it in a way that would prevent anyone from saying he did say it, which also means it’s his fault, and therefore he did kind of say it and it’s perfectly fair for us to keep repeating that he said it.

    Just wanted to clear all this up. Thanks.

    -The Media

  • clinton is an idiot playing off hard times. tell me if i am talking to someone or is this like the last brilliant answer i got – another idiot’s answer – ” first you need to learn

    how to spell ” duh ?

  • Comments are closed.