Albert Gore, the Nobel Prize winning climatologist---oh wait! he's got zero training in climatology.

Albert Gore, the Nobel Prize winning meteorologist---oh wait, he's got zero training in meteorology.

Albert Gore, the Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist---oh wait, he's got no training in astrophysics either.

Obama Campaign spokesman Bill Burton just made a major gaffe, on energy policy. What may make this more problematic as a gaffe, is that it also may not be recognized by many Democrats as such.

I ask one favor in advance. This piece is not short. It goes through both the underlying issue, some broader points regarding the importance of talking point communications to the public, and some general tendencies that may perpetuate certain critical types of mistakes when it comes to dominant message framing.  While I hope that you do take a few moments to read this piece --- in fact I actually hope you send it to the DNC -- you certainly can choose not to. But what I ask, I hope reasonably, is that if you do choose not to read the full piece, is to refrain from commenting upon it or recommending comments. If you do not read it, you can not know what it really says.  And it is what it really says, that is important. Thanks in advance for that consideration.

the livestream is over, will be posting clips & text as soon as they are availiable
here's the email sent from the We campaign before the speech

Dear M,

Something important is happening tomorrow.

In a speech in Washington, DC, Nobel Laureate and Former Vice President Al Gore will issue a major challenge, essentially pressing the "reset" button on how we think about energy and climate, and how we can create prosperity in America.

His speech will generate a great deal of attention. Since you are a We campaign member, we wanted to make sure you heard about it in advance. We'll email you when we've posted the video highlights, action steps and other resources -- so stay tuned for breaking news!

Obama Campaign spokesman Bill Burton just made a major gaffe, on energy policy. What may make this more problematic as a gaffe, is that it also may not be recognized by many Democrats as such.  

Excerpts from a Raw Story report on Bush's "News" conference:

On Saturday, President Bush tried to pin the blame on Congress for soaring energy prices and said lawmakers need to lift long-standing restrictions on drilling for oil in pristine lands and offshore tracts believed to hold huge reserves of fuel.

"It's time for members of Congress to address the pain that high gas prices are causing our citizens," the president said. "Every extra dollar that American families spend because of high gas prices is one less dollar they can use to put food on the table or send a child to college. The American people deserve better."

Bush acknowledged it could take years before opening the Continental Shelf to oil drilling would result in increased U.S. production. But, he said, at least it would put the nation on the right track toward reducing its reliance on imported oil.

"I readily concede it won't produce a barrel of oil tomorrow, but it will reverse the psychology," Bush told a White House news conference.

I wonder what the resignation of the worst president in recent memory would do for the nation's psychology?

The Washington Post reported on President Bush's guilt-tripping Congress because they wouldn't respond to the increasing price of gas Exactly the Way He Wanted Them To:

Bush's move was aimed at increasing pressure on Democrats to act. It also raised the likelihood that offshore drilling would become a prominent part of the ongoing presidential campaign.

Bush first called on Congress to lift its drilling ban last month, saying he would simultaneously rescind the executive ban announced by his father, President George H. W. Bush, in 1990 and formally implemented in 1992. But he said today that he decided to act now because Democrats have failed to schedule any hearings or take the issue seriously.

"It's been almost a month since I urged Congress to act, and they've done nothing," Bush said. "As the Democratically controlled Congress has sat idle, gas prices have continued to increase."

If Congress failed to act after one month, how guilty is Bush for not acting after 6 years, 10 months, and 3 days?

Where are you Democrats?  Yes Obama is now the leader of the party and yes deference should be given to him but where are you Speaker Pelosi, Leader Reid?  Why are you on the defensive about offshore drilling?  Why can't you throw that shit right back in George Bush's face.  Here's how.

George, nice try, we've been chasing our tails catering to Big Oil, see Iraq war for oil, see torture for oil, see American brand RUINED.

George, nice try, we could have an effect NOW with lowering the speed limit a bit (but not to 55mpg which is too low), see Senator Webb's work on that.  We could have an effect in a year or two with a New Deal level of cash inserted into the wind and solar energy industries, not to mention the exciting advances in the hydrogen industry.

But Dems sit there with stupid looks on their faces.  Pathetic.  Get. off. your. asses.  Get. the. rapid. response. working. NOW.

This is probably worse news for Obama than McCain given that Americans will usually vote in their short term rather than long term interests. What it really means is that high energy prices are here to stay for awhile, and it will not likely change in most of our lifetimes no matter who wins. That is what the voters need to be told by the candidates and what this country needs to accept in order to confront the problem realistically. The bigger question at this point in time is whether Obama can convince Americans to finally think in terms of future generations while McCain continues to reward our selfishness by refusing to even try.

It must be nice to not have to worry about your job, your health insurance, and your mortgage. It must be nice to be so obsessed with FISA that you're willing to do massive harm to the rest of us out here in middle America. It must be nice to be so much of a purist that you're willing to withhold donations to the Democratic Nominee for President because he didn't vote your way.

 I am a huge Obama supporter, I see him as the best presidential candidate with a real chance of winning I've ever had the chance to vote for. What's more, he's turned up at a time this Nation most desperately needs an agent of change. But I am not naive. We don't get purity in American politics. A candidate who satisfies all of our fondest idealistic desires might make us progressive folk extremely happy, but it won't mean anything if the happiness ends when the election results come in. A great candidate doesn't get to be a great leader if he/she is not elected, so inspirational views without masterful political skills won't do us much good.
  Obama combines these. He is the one, Oprah said it, and I believe it. I'm certainly not going to leave our candidate, and I hope no-one else here does either.
   And yet many of us are shaking our heads and wondering WTF is going on with some of the stances he's taken of late. What exactly is he doing these past few weeks, and why? And if he's "moving to the Center," is that smart? And can we really trust him?
 
 Update: The poll results are shocking thus far! The combination of pot and pie seems a sure winner around here.

Cross-posted at Facing South

One of the many downsides to high gas prices is that it unleashes a flurry of conservative punditry claiming that "the market" will solve our energy problems, including catastrophic climate change.

See, when the price of gas goes up, they say, consumers cut back -- and voila! no more oil issues or climate crisis. Just like the 1970s, a bevy of conservatives are once again saying there's no need for tougher efficiency standards on cars or other government policy -- just let the market and high prices work their magic, and we'll be free of foreign oil and living in a clean energy world in no time.

They were wrong in the 1970s, and they're wrong again today.

Biofuel, once seemed the answer to our addiction to oil, has created an unintended consequence:  potential global famine.  In a World Bank Report, leaked to The Guardian, crops used for biofuels increased global food prices up by 75%.

The latest controversy over Obama's statements about the Iraq War confuse him. He says that if President, he will simply instruct his Chiefs of Staff to end the Iraq war. He says that he will do what it takes to safely withdraw the troops. He adds that what makes his policy different from GW Bush and McCain is that they are for this open ended commitment that can leave troops indefinitely in Iraq. Obama's politics has the Left mad because he won't announce an immediate withdrawal of troops regardless of conditions on the ground and the right who say he is vacillating somehow on his promises and previous statements.

I will be attending the MoveOn.org Event: Day of Action for an Oil-Free President:

http://pol.moveon.org/...  

There are many of these events being organized throughout the country. 

This issue of Energy Economy Paradigms (old Oil/Hydrocarbon based vs. Renewable) is, in my considered opinion, THE CENTRAL ISSUE which will define whether we build a future of increasing: prosperity, security, and dignity for all; or descend into a zero-sum game; a MadMax style world of barbarity and increasing scarcity.

Ask yourself, and please consider with intellectual integrity, the following question:

Does a continued reliance on Hydro Carbon Resources, as the basis for our energy economy, represent a great risk to our national security?

Well ask and you shall receive I guess...

On monday, my colleague and I called on the federal Bureau of Land Management to stop being an Energy Delayer and lift a moratorium that locked up the vast reserves of solar energy located on federal lands. Today, the BLM announced that they would lift the planned twenty-two month moratorium on land it stewards in six southwest states rich in solar energy.

Will someone please tell Barack Obama that he’s aiming way too low when it comes to energy policy?  We need a big, bold plan that gets us beyond oil dependency FAST – not in that always promised 25 or 50 years -- but in this decade. We need a President who will shoot for the moon.

By Helen Aki and Jesse Jenkins, cross-posted from the Breakthrough Blog

Just as the time becomes ripe for a major push towards clean, cheap sources of electricity, the Bureau of Land Management threwa two-year stumbling block in the path of solar power development last Friday.  As solar power ramps up--the Bureau has received 130 proposals solar plants since 2005--the Bureau decided to put a hold on further development, claiming that that an exhaustive environmental impact report must be completed before solar plants can be installed on federally owned lands. Meanwhile, the push continues for oil drilling in protected offshore areas and the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (an endeavor that really merits an environmental impact assessment!).

(Cross posted at the Drexel Dems Blog)

One of the most harmful methods of the uncritical press these last few years (decades?) is the propensity for framing stories as "he said/she said" and thus relieving the "journalist" of his or her obligation to examine the veracity of either sides claims.  Bush and McCain don't lie; Democrats just argue that they lie.  I believe that this aspect of modern political journalism, this artificial objectivity, has been a crucial component of the success of George W. Bush and the Republicans.

Today via Google News Alerts I found this piece from the Boston Globe that is a small example of the problem.