Mr. Proud American, I think the point Jamie is trying to make doesn’t have to do with what Obama has planned, it has to do with what we have planned: a broad-based movement calling for an end to the climate crisis and fighting for a sustainable, just, and prosperous future for all.

Jamie has made the best case I’ve heard yet for why we – the members of the youth climate movement – should support Obama: because he’s creating the environment for our movement to grow, and we all have a pretty strong interest in that.

I’ve been a strong Edwards supporter. He seems to me to be both the most progressive, populist candidate on just about all fronts and yet also seems to find a way to talk to independents, moderates and conservatives without immediately turning them off. Despite being strongly progressive, he matches up very well against all the Rs in a general and is highly “electable.” Most importantly to me, he has shown the most leadership on climate and energy issues, coming out with a strong climate/energy plan very early on and he should be credited with driving Obama and Clinton to take stronger stands. More than that, he seems to “get it” better than anyone else: climate is clearly a top priority for him, and he’s convinced me early on that he understands both the scale of the problem and the commitment required of the response.

Clinton seems to get it now, or at least she has done her homework and has smart people around her. She’s also taken whole stock the green jobs platform from 1 Sky/Power Shift/Step it Up, which is excellent, and she’s got the economic opportunity messaging down pat. But to me, it seems like climate is just another of six or so policy issues for Clinton, not one of her top one or two priorities, and she seems the least likely to unite broad-based support for strong climate policy and a clean energy future.

Obama has a good solid climate/energy plan now too (about six months after Edwards’ plan and a week or so after Clinton’s if I remember correctly), and he sprinkles it into his stump speeches. But he has yet to convince me that he is really committed to the issue, or that he isn’t just saying it because he has to, because Edwards and groups like LCV – and us – have made it clear he has to talk about climate.

All that being said, Jamie’s case to support Obama is a good one – not for his policies, or for his personal commitment to climate, but because of his apparent ability to spark a “movement mentality” in this country, and to empower every day citizens – and young people – with a feeling that they can collectively change the world. That would be a huge boon in our efforts to create a movement for a sustainable, just, and prosperous future, and may trump a candidates’ policy positions, as long as we’re convinced Obama will be receptive to our movement – to the movement he will help spark, even if unintentionally – once elected.

We can’t rely on a president – any candidate – to change the world for us. It’s our future at stake, and it’s foolish to put that future in the hands of any candidate or President, no matter how good they are. We’re going to have to create the change we want to see, and we can! If Obama helps convince millions more young people that they can indeed create the change they want to see – forget what Obama wants to see – then he could be our most effective ally on the campaign trail, and in the White House.

We should continue our already highly successful efforts to drive the candidates to take stronger and stronger positions during the elections. And at the same time, we should start preparing to push climate into the top of the priority list for whichever candidate moves into the White House in January 2009. Our work will not be over in November 2008, but through diligent efforts over the next 10 months, we’ll be in the right position in 2009 to capitalize and make the critical push for strong federal action (finally!).

Eye on the prize folks…

In January 2007, Obama co-sponsored the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion
Act of 2007 (S.155). After being attacked over it, Obama took only a
small step back from his promotion of coal-to-liquids — claiming
that he’ll only support it if it can produce fewer greenhouse gas
emissions than conventional oil refineries (which is impossible,
meaning that they’ll just do some screwy calculations to rationalize
and mislead, while still promoting it). He still sponsors S.155 and
the bill still has no language that would incorporate Obama’s
backpeddling campaign promises about global warming criteria.

Exelon — the nation’s largest nuclear utility, based in Illinois
(the #1 nuclear power state) — by way of their corporate officials,
is among Obama’s top 6 campaign contributors. Obama remains pro-nuclear.

Obama’s support for ethanol, coal and nuclear has been pretty
consistent and disgusting. No honest environmentalist can truthfully
say that he’s “be a great president” on environmental issues.

On other issues, he’s not much better… having voted in favor of
numerous war funding bills, having refused to take the nuclear
weapons option off the table with regard to U.S. using them on Iran
or other countries, having joined recently with Clinton in support of
the corporate-neoliberal North American Free Trade Agreement to Peru,
having voted build 700 miles of double-layered fencing on the
U.S.-Mexico border by the end of 2008, etc.

So, let’s get real here. If you want to play
“lesser” evil with corporate puppets in democrat’s clothing, that’s
your prerogative. However, please let’s not pretend that Obama, Clinton or even Edwards are somehow our friends on energy and environmental issues. Their track records show otherwise and their corporate campaign contributions dictate otherwise even moreso.

…I think that is a pretty good assessment of the candidates.

as for CTL, MTR, etc… Obama is an illinois state senator. yes he said he “transcends normal politics” but lets face it, hes covering his own ass. once he wins the presidency, which he WILL, his position on CTL, MTR can be changed. and its up to the citizens of the US to do it.

he is different. he cares what people say. he understands grassroots movements. if we want to stop coal plants then we need to motivate people the way he does. some of his supporters stood in the winter weather of NH for 2.5 hrs just to ensure they saw him speak this morning. we need to be that motivational, why not start with a leader of our country that can do the same for us…

that said, of the candidates kucinich is my favorite, but i’ll vote for edwards because he’s a feisty gent who obviously has a taste for the flesh of big business.