Bill Richardson and energy policy

He served as energy secretary during the Clinton administration. Why didn't he work to promote renewable and clean energy back then?

Was it because he was friends with the oil industry, serving on the boards of Valero Energy and Diamond Offshore Drilling?

I really regret he didn't do more as Energy Secretary during the Clinton years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson

I voted for Obama.

He had to leave after the Wen Ho Lee mess.

So tell me again why his endorsement of Obama is such a compliment and why he's being touted as a running mate? Is it because luring Hispanic voters is more important than having quality people on the ticket?

He left because the Clinton administration ended.

Its something I wondered about even back then.

Other cabinet members were able to successfully promote their agendas, eg Ron Brown, Robert Rubin, etc.

Telecom, Nafta, etc...

Energy was cheep back then & not a concern. It was an honorary position.

He just wanted to pass NAFTA, upgrade China's trade status and pass the Repugs Welfare reform.



Don't blame Bill, blame Bill....


errrr..... well you know what I mean

is all it is cracked up to be. See here

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/23/181845/197

Also if Edwards endorses Obama will you start saying bad things about him?

and still support him, whoever he endorses.

Though I think Richards is a nice guy and has some good diplomatic skills, I was not pleased with his tenure as energy secretary. I kept waiting for something to happen....

... everyone who is not in support of your candidate-of-choice has any impact, or relevance.

I once heard my mailman say something derogatory about Hillary. Will you be devoting an OP to him next?

Just wonderin' ... :shrug:

Because I think you'll have a difficult time proving that.

:rofl:

that I denigrate everyone who supports Obama.

You're wrong, but I'm willing to see if you have some proof.

I'm sorry if my honest, probing questions about Bill Richardson's tenure as energy secretary make you unhappy. But can't you stick with discussing the issues at hand?

... but quite frankly, you're not worth the effort of a discussion.

My bad. Should have just Let It Sink - but couldn't resist the temptation to comment on the fact that Hillary supporters have taken to dissing anyone who speaks out either against their team, or for the other side.

The fact of the matter is that Hill threw Richardson under the bus - something she wouldn't have done if she thought she had a shot at the GE, in which case his support would have been "useful" - as the Clintons like to frame their concept of "friendship".

By doing so, Hill has conceded that there is no negative to be attached to burning her bridges, being those bridges won't be required to get to "the other side" - simply because there is no other side for her.

Adios.

But as usual, Obama supporters always turn it into an attack on Hillary. So predictable.

... was not in issue until he endorsed Obama - nor would it ever have been, had he endorsed Hillary.

As you say, so predictable ...

should come under scrutiny, especially on their past record. Energy policy happens to be a critical issue this election cycle, we can't afford to make any more mistakes.

The same questions would still be valid if he had endorsed Clinton. Its time to start putting party and country ahead of blind loyalty candidates. If we don't ask the hard questions now, Dem activists are going to have a lot of problems in getting a candidate elected.

... except for the fact that my initial proposition still stands. You wouldn't be discussing anything negative about Richardson had he endorsed Hillary.

And no one has said anything about his being offered, or having accepted, a possible VP position or Cabinet post.

I realize this is the popular conjecture being posited by the Hill campaign - that he wouldn't have endorsed Obama unless it was in exchange for a promised position. But that is still idle speculation at this point, and nothing more.

Therefore, this "important discussion" is, at this point, totally moot.

and continue to tell me what I'm thinking, when you know less than nothing.

I have to confess that my curiosity got the better of me. Just had to check in on this thread, waiting for the part about Richardson's energy policies being "sexist".

To blame the subordinate and not the leader
for not choosing a vision for the leader is like

blaming a child for the actions of his parent.

I have a strong preference for evaluating the evidence. As someone who followed the Clinton administration closely in the news (and online) at the time, I base my POV on what I gleaned from what was actually going on at the time.

Richardson generated more than a few cringe-inducing mistakes during his tenure as energy secretary while others had more success. Bill Clinton was very supportive of funding high tech research, especially in the area of energy alternatives. Recall, he helped pay for his first economic reform package (and earned the enmity of energy companies) when he placed a wholesale tax on gasoline. A good energy secretary would have brough him a lot more projects and proposals to work on. And keep in mind, Clinton was busy fighting the GOP and Ken Starr during his tenure, while also trying to deal with terrorism. He had a lot on his plate.

I'm not placing all the blame on Richardson, he wasn't there for all of Clinton's term. But his time as energy secretary was not very productive.

at that time, and not Al Gore's vision
that Clinton didn't follow either, Bubba had his own plan.

Did Clinton ever tap Jimmy Carter for his energy thoughts?
If he had, we definetly wouldn't be in the mess we are today.

"Keep in mind" since we are talking about cognitive thought.
Bill was able to handle multiple affairs of state, thank you very much,
without putting his energies just into 'fighting the GOP and Ken Starr"
at the time.


Your argument is still lacking any historical or linked documents
or articles.

Now why did Clinton not follow and try to pass renewable energy
initiatives back then, even half as strong as Carter,
even when Richardson was not or was the Energy Secretary?

:rofl:

Oh yeah, that's why.

over the last 4 or 5 years, most recently when he was running for president himself. His name should always come up when we discuss Dems failed attempts at enacting good energy policy.

Good to Know.