Did anyone notice that in the last debate, sponsored by "clean coal", NO question on energy policy?

This was a glaring omission, don't you think? The last big debate before supertuesday and nothing? In LA, no less! SUX.

Beyond that, can we discuss here the actual policy differences between Clinton and Obama, and maybe areas where they are lacking?

Example:
Although both Obama and Clinton have mentioned in terms ranging from vague to specific, energy policy, a list of applause lines and a general amount of investment here and there. BUT.
It is my opinion that EITHER of them could be a bit more aggressive in fleshing out the idea of "green collar" projects, tying it to production jobs in areas with closed plants, as well as installing solar systems (and water too) that were subsidized by govt (but the money comes from dirty industry paying carbon costs). These green building funds could be tied to tax rebates or other relief, combined with low interest loans, payable with the very savings that would result by the savings.

Consider tying these issues together, and thinking about how they all interrelate:
Lack of employment
getting off oil
security issues, both here and abroad
cutting military costs, while increasing security
health concerns and costs
environmental impact on health costs
individual savings/spending and cost of living
infrastructure investment
public transportation
the cost of water use and treatment
electric grid 2.0, allowing for feedback into the grid from individuals, coops, small energy producers
internet access for ALL
open government, sunshine laws, better feedback from citizens
decentralizing systems
homelessness and poverty
open source software AND working models of sustainability (hardware and software) to share with the world.


Edwards and Kucinich had a more aggressive approach to start with, but Obama has said he will welcome ideas during the transition. Maybe Sen. Clinton has said this too, though I have not heard this. I hope so, and would welcome more input into the system form ANYONE.
As a matter of philosophy, I think WE should be urging the candidates to consider more aggressive and multi-disciplinary points of view that could end up more than the sum of its parts. A holistic and systemic POV will have a synergetic effect that will end up in savings and success on many levels...

Don't fight now, let's just consider some ideas together.
We can still do that, right?
Right?

If not, I will repost at a later date in GD, as this type of thinking needs grownup discussion, not childish battles.
But I put it here in the hopes of engaging some thought together, and how we may encourage our candidates to consider holistic patterns into the equation.

Of the debate!

(Just as they were in on the rolling blackouts in 2002).

Clean coal...unsafe mines.:mad:

B-)

But do you have thoughts on integrating multiple issues into holistic and systemic meta-issues?
We can solve several problems at once through smart policy.

this is a call for ideas more than a bitch session.
We are the party of ideas now, right?
Feel free to toss in! :hi:

except for a little bit on global warming at some of the debates.

Of course the corp sponsors do what they do.

Let's do what we do best -think, not just gripe about it - and come up with some narrative of our own.

Good energy policy IS good security
Decentralization IS National security

Govt taking $$ from corp carbon tax to subsidize homeowners helps environment, AND the bottom line on cost of living.

Good environment = more jobs
Saving money spent on heating/cooling ADDS to the bottom line - beyond just "tax cuts" - it stimulates the economy and raises the value of our homes.


We need to reframe issues and make it easy to see benefits that cross over what people consider SEPARATE- and see that they are NOT separate.

This is a post about ideas, not battles or kvetching.
I took a risk by putting it in GDP, just to see if we could rise to the conceptual challenge.
Let me hear some good solutions that take multiple issues and shows the correlation and combined benefits!

In fact I don't recall much has been said in any of the debates so far about energy, global warming, decline of public infrastructure, loss of manufacturing base and on and on.

Then maybe we can take it to the candidates and to people during the general and beyond.

Your response lists very important "items" that, as you know, are interrelated.
How can we reframe and word things to get people to really "grok" the big picture?
I think this will help folks get over the counter-paradigms of environment=slow economy, or that "infrastructure" is ONLY about roadss and bridges.

Add to the OP list of items:
immigration (green jobs/infrastructure jobs to work for citizenship)
public service, volunteer and paid and help for education.
better information systems for people to get info on energy savings, healthcare, govt assistance, etc

I have more, just wanting some feedback and get to brainstorming...