First Debate Produces No Clear Winner, but Obama edges out.

Tonight was a moment I'd been waiting for for a long time: Barack Obama and John McCain facing off in their first one-on-one Presidential Debate on live television. I was a little worried yesterday that McCain might successfully postpone the debate due to the urgency of the financial crisis situation, but thankfully there was enough pressure from the American public that McCain second guessed the political dividends that this gimmick might pay towards his campaign. (Sorry Senator McCain, but Gov. Palin's still going to have to face off with Senator Biden next week, as much as you'd love to give her some more time to prepare herself).

Fortunately for politically interested Americans, the debate went forward as planned. Overall, I think most people would agree that neither candidate vastly outperformed the other tonight, nor did either of them crash and burn. According to a CBS News poll following the debate, "40% of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. 22% thought John McCain won. 38% saw it as a draw."

Nearly half of the debate was focused on the financial crisis and the economy, and rightfully so considering talk of a possible $700 billion dollar government bailout, mortgage closures, skyrocketing unemployment rates, and high gas prices. While I expected Obama to dance circles around McCain on economic issues, I thought McCain was able to hold his own. I was surprised with how articulate McCain was in presenting his policies, even if I didn't identify with most of what he was saying.

In fact, I thought both of them did certain things quite well: specifically energizing their base of supporters. As such, Obama's main plan for getting the economy back on track was tax cuts for the middle class and 95% of working Americans, offset by closing corporate tax loopholes and repealing the Bush tax cuts on those Americans making over $250,000 a year. Also, cutting wasteful government spending and having the long-term goal of getting out of Iraq. McCain's was to concentrate entirely on cutting wasteful government spending, to lower taxes, and to have less government involvement in general. In this sense, the strategy for the night seemed to be to "play to your base."

Frankly, I was a little disappointed that both candidates expressed too much of a willingness to postpone crucial projects in order to pay for the financial crisis, specifically their potential willingness to postpone crucial energy projects. Although, Obama said he would only be willing to alter parts of his energy strategy to adjust to hard times and cited the benefits that a clean energy revolution would have for the American economy. To me, the most ridiculous part of the debate was when John McCain offered a wild solution for the financial crisis when Jim Lehrer pressed him for more details, "How about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs." A spending freeze? On almost everything except the US military (which gets the largest share of US budget appropriations)? It seems that McCain's only strategy for the economy is to cut taxes and cut spending and everything else will just work itself out. I though Obama's response to this was quite accurate,
"The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel. There are some programs that are very important that are under funded...Let me tell you another place to look for some savings. We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we're going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad, that we have to look at bringing that war to a close."

As usual, environmental issues were entirely ignored by the moderator and made virtually no appearance in the debate. However, energy policy did come up several times, and in that sense Global Climate Change was at discussed. What frustrates me most is when John McCain attempts to present himself as a leader on energy innovation in the Senate. When McCain was trying to distinguish himself as the great Mavericky Maverick that he is, he mentioned how he differs for George Bush on the issue of addressing climate change. Unfortunately, as Obama rightly pointed out Friday night, McCain has voted against renewable energy 23 times over his career in the US Congress. "And if we want to talk about oil company profits, under your tax plan, John -- this is undeniable -- oil companies would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks." So as much as John McCain may be a slight improvement over George Bush on energy and the economy you can be assured that renewable energy and innovation is not his priority. Under a McCain-Palin administration we are going to see more drilling, more "clean" coal, 45 new nuclear plants by 2030, more tax breaks for oil companies, and then a little renewable energy on the side. (For more on how Obama is head and shoulders above McCain on energy and climate change see my previous two posts).

If anyone missed the debate, here's a link to the transcript online. The video can be found there also.

Next up, we'll get a chance to take a look at Senator Biden and Governor Palin going head to head this Thursday. Should be interesting.

Friedman Says Election is No Brainer for Green Issue Voters

Thomas Friedman seems to agree with my last post about what McCain's VP choice of Sarah Palin (and his recent record) says about his environmental positions. He claims that "McCain has completed his makeover from the greenest Republican to run for president to just another representative of big oil." And he's right. McCain has officially proved as of late that he's just another green-washing poser. Check out the article below if you still think McCain has even a shred of green cred.

And Then There Was One

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: September 2, 2008

As we emerge from Labor Day, college students are gathering back on campuses not only to start the fall semester, but also, in some cases, to vote for the first time in a presidential election. There is no bigger issue on campuses these days than environment/energy. Going into this election, I thought that — for the first time — we would have a choice between two "green" candidates. That view is no longer operative — and college students (and everyone else) need to understand that.

With his choice of Sarah Palin — the Alaska governor who has advocated drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and does not believe mankind is playing any role in climate change — for vice president, John McCain has completed his makeover from the greenest Republican to run for president to just another representative of big oil.

Given the fact that Senator McCain deliberately avoided voting on all eight attempts to pass a bill extending the vital tax credits and production subsidies to expand our wind and solar industries, and given his support for lowering the gasoline tax in a reckless giveaway that would only promote more gasoline consumption and intensify our
addiction to oil, and given his desire to make more oil-drilling, not innovation around renewable energy, the centerpiece of his energy policy — in an effort to mislead voters that support for drilling today would translate into lower prices at the pump today — McCain has forfeited any claim to be a green candidate.

So please, students, when McCain comes to your campus and flashes a few posters of wind turbines and solar panels, ask him why he has been AWOL when it came to Congress supporting these new technologies. "Back in June, the Republican Party had a round-up," said Carl Pope, the executive director of the Sierra Club. "One of the unbranded cattle — a wizened old maverick name John McCain — finally got roped.
Then they branded him with a big 'Lazy O' — George Bush's brand, where the O stands for oil. No more maverick.

"One of McCain's last independent policies putting him at odds with Bush was his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," added Pope, "yet he has now picked a running mate who has opposed holding big oil accountable and been dismissive of alternative energy while focusing her work on more oil drilling in a wildlife refuge and off of our coasts. While the northern edge of her state literally falls into the rising Arctic Ocean, Sarah Palin says, 'The jury is still out on global warming.' She's the one hanging the jury — and John McCain is going to let her."

Indeed, Palin's much ballyhooed confrontations with the oil industry have all been about who should get more of the windfall profits, not how to end our addiction.

Barack Obama should be doing more to promote his green agenda, but at least he had the courage, in the heat of a Democratic primary, not to pander to voters by calling for a lifting of the gasoline tax. And while he has come out for a limited expansion of offshore drilling, he has refrained from misleading voters that this is in any way a solution to our energy problems.

I am not against a limited expansion of off-shore drilling now. But it is a complete sideshow. By constantly pounding into voters that his energy focus is to "drill, drill, drill," McCain is diverting attention from what should be one of the central issues in this election: who has the better plan to promote massive innovation around
clean power technologies and energy efficiency.

Why? Because renewable energy technologies — what I call "E.T." — are going to constitute the next great global industry. They will rival and probably surpass "I.T." — information technology. The country that spawns the most E.T. companies will enjoy more economic power, strategic advantage and rising standards of living. We need to make sure that is America. Big oil and OPEC want to make sure it is not.

Palin's nomination for vice president and her desire to allow drilling in the Alaskan wilderness "reminded me of a lunch I had three and half years ago with one of the Russian trade attachés," global trade consultant Edward Goldberg said to me. "After much wine, this gentleman told me that his country was very pleased that the Bush
administration wanted to drill in the Alaskan wilderness. In his opinion, the amount of product one could actually derive from there was negligible in terms of needs. However, it signified that the Bush administration was not planning to do anything to create alternative energy, which of course would threaten the economic growth of Russia."

So, college students, don't let anyone tell you that on the issue of green, this election is not important. It is vitally important, and the alternatives could not be more black and white.