Hillary Rocks in Houston

Filed under: 2008 elections, Energy, Feature, Hillary Clinton, Lead Story — marc moore on February 29, 2008 @ 7:53 am CET

Facing a do-or-die primary in Texas, Hillary Clinton delivered a great speech at the Houston Presidential Energy Summit tonight.

I was there and thought she did a terrific job even though the audience was probably smaller than she’d hoped to see in the 4th largest city in America.

hillary-crowd

From the 4th row, Hillary - who arrived at 7:30 PM, 1.5 hours late - looked and sounded energetic at the end of a long day. The campaign trail has been difficult for her lately and the once-inevitable fact of her election has been reduced to something rather less than probable.

Still, Hillary was the only major candidate to speak at the Summit held in the city that many call the energy capital of the world (Ron Paul was here earlier). This commitment, kept after starting her morning in Ohio, demonstrates to me once again that she is a more discerning, capable, and practical candidate than Barack Obama.

In truth, both candidates could do better when it comes to placing the proper degree of importance on energy policy. As Loren Steffy of the Houston Chronicle notes, energy has not been a major topic of discussion among the candidates for the Democratic nomination. Republicans have done a better job of acknowledging the obvious link between national security and a stable energy supply.

Hillary’s speech was targeted to the energy industry audience that had paid to attend the summit and focused on the similarities between the aerospace industry and the immeasurably important role it has played in the development of the American high tech industry and the new challenges faced by the energy industry.

Differentiating herself with Obama regarding space exploration, Clinton said that she would accelerate development of the space shuttle’s replacement to ensure that America continues to lead in space and does allow “a ten year period in which Americans will have to hitch a ride from Chinese or Russian-made vehicles”.

That’s a great decision to make because it shows that she understands what real hope is: the dream of moving forward and the opportunity to do so.

In contrast to her opponent, Hillary Clinton in person is a figure that makes you believe in her because her vision of hope is one of working toward a better future and her idea of change is the end result of years or even generations of n nation rolling up its collective sleeves and simply making it happen.

America must take the initiative in the energy industry, Clinton says, because energy security is essential to our nations future and that of our children. We face challenges in regard to our economy because of high energy prices here and now, in energy security because we are importing the vast majority of our oil, much of it from countries whose interests could not be less aligned with ours if the devil had planned it so, and in regard to the environment.

“I think that we can all agree - finally - that climate change is a real threat,” Clinton says. But is that really true? The science is not yet conclusive. Even so, Hillary clearly believes that it is and has huge plans to revolutionize the energy industry, plans that will cost a lot of money.

To achieve her goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 90% and cutting oil imports by 2/3 - Hillary would create a National Energy Council and do away with tax advantages currently enjoyed by energy companies. This money and more, to the tune of $50B, would, she says, subsidize the move to clean energy industries.

Introducing Mrs. Clinton, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Houston’s representative in the House, said:

She believes in the genius of America.

She’s not afraid in discussing fossil fuels. She’s not afraid in discussing alternatives and renewables. She’s not afraid of Texas and Houston or the fact that we are the energy capital of the world.

Proving that, Clinton told the pro-energy industry crowd that she was going to take a significant amount of money away from oil companies. She also challenged these business leaders to do more, to become true energy companies instead of merely petroleum companies, and to lead innovation by cooperating with the public sector and higher education with a sense of urgency. “We can do this,” Clinton says, and when listening one can’t help but believe her.

Now, back at the keyboard, it’s seems dubious to me that the Green Corps is going to do much to make American a healthier country. And the 5 million jobs that Hillary plans to create in the green energy industry seem to me to be funded more on the backs of the oil industry than on a sustainable demanded-driven momentum of their own. Cannibalization, in other words, and not sustainable.

But when Hillary compares the importance of energy security - which is perhaps the most important issue facing America today - to the challenge Dwight Eisenhower faced when Sputnik was launched, it shows that Mrs. Clinton understands the true nature of what American is and how it should respond to a crisis. This, in contrast to Barack Obama’s promise of hope in the form of government solutions to private problems. Real hope is the chance to accomplish something important for one’s self, which is quite different than having the problem solved for you. Clinton and McCain both understand this. Obama, I think, does not.

On this point, Hillary had this to say about Obama’s constant one-note call for change:

The world is changing and we will have to change with it. But the question is, do we lead the change or does the change lead us? You know, all this talk about change in our campaign leaves out a very important qualifier. Change is going to happen whether we do anything or not. So how do we both master change and ensure that the change which occurs actually produces progress? I believe that we can, with the right commitment, break the bonds of the old energy economy and turn this energy challenge into one of the greatest economic opportunities in our history.

The enormous undertaking of creating a secure energy supply for the future will require a president who is willing to take on big problems with enthusiasm, who is determined, and will not stop short of an important goal. America’s brilliant success in space and high technology did not happen by hoping for it or by accident, Hillary says. “It happened because we made up our minds to do it.” Period.

Speaking about Senator John Glenn, Hillary shows what true hope really looks like:

We were talking about space and energy and I was struck by how he still has that twinkle in his eye as though he is that young astronaut that just broke down all of the barriers and lifted our hearts. There are so many young Americans waiting to be called to do the same, to give us the energy future we deserve. It is up to us to send out that call. Is is up to America once again to lead the way.

Hillary Clinton is the better candidate for the Democratic party’s nomination.

I had the chance to shake Mrs. Clinton’s hand after she finished her speech - one of the many benefits of working for such a notable publication as the PoliGazette - and in that moment I couldn’t help but think that, if not for the baggage that she carries with her, I would like to vote for Hillary in the general election.

Unfortunately, both Bill and the Democratic members of Congress are still there, now that the spell has been broken.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

6 Comments »

  1. 1 jacksmith

    February 29, 2008 @ 1:58 pm CET

    YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

    If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

    You Might Be An Idiot!

    If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

    You Might Be An Idiot!

    If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

    You Might Be An Idiot!

    If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

    You Might Be An Idiot!

    If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

    You Might Be An Idiot!

    If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary’s than they had ever been before or since.

    You Might Be An Idiot!

    If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of  President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

    You Might Be An Idiot!

    If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

    Best regards

    jacksmith…

  2. 2 Space Politics » Another snippet from the campaign trail

    February 29, 2008 @ 2:50 pm CET

    […] Summit”, the only one of the three major candidates to speak at the event. According to a report at PoliGazette by someone who is clearly a supporter of, or at least sympathetic to, Clinton, the candidate did […]

  3. 3 C Stanley

    February 29, 2008 @ 3:03 pm CET

    You might be an idiot if you expect to convince anyone by calling them idiots.

    You might be an idiot if your arguments for supporting Hillary Clinton all involve her husband’s record.

    I’m just sayin’, jacksmith….

  4. 4 S Shaman

    February 29, 2008 @ 3:51 pm CET

    The world is full of naive individuals, we sometimes refer to them as idiots when they don’t share the same beliefs that we tend to hold dear to our hearts. Its so easy to jump on a candidate’s bandwagon when it looks like that they are heading towards victory, but its foolish to believe that any of these candidates can realistically bring about great change in Washington, a city "hell-bent" on change.  All those who seem mesmerized now by the fluffy words of  Obama , may one day soon come to regret that they were actually a part of that bandwagon. Experience has and always will be the determining factor as to whether anything is accomplished in Washington, not empty rhetoric that sounds nice but doesn’t achieve anything. Democratic voters need to be reminded of Michael Dukakis who was riding high in the primary campaign, but got his behind beat badly in the general election. He too was a new face, with little experience.  So using the term "Idiot" may seen a bit harsh, rather it is easier to call the voters "gullible" since they are caught up in a frenzy of emotion, voting with their hearts instead of their heads, which often is a dangerous thing to do.

  5. 5 S Shaman

    February 29, 2008 @ 3:53 pm CET

    The world is full of naive individuals, we sometimes refer to them as idiots when they don’t share the same beliefs that we tend to hold dear to our hearts. Its so easy to jump on a candidate’s bandwagon when it looks like that they are heading towards victory, but its foolish to believe that any of these candidates can realistically bring about great change in Washington, a city “hell-bent” on change.  All those who seem mesmerized now by the fluffy words of  Obama , may one day soon come to regret that they were actually a part of that bandwagon. Experience has and always will be the determining factor as to whether anything is accomplished in Washington, not empty rhetoric that sounds nice but doesn’t achieve anything. Democratic voters need to be reminded of Michael Dukakis who was riding high in the primary campaign, but got his behind beat badly in the general election. He too was a new face, with little experience.  So using the term “Idiot” may seen a bit harsh, rather it is easier to call the voters “gullible” since they are caught up in a frenzy of emotion, voting with their hearts instead of their heads, which often is a dangerous thing to do.

  6. 6 Kevin Sullivan

    February 29, 2008 @ 7:17 pm CET

    Jack, is Bill on the ballot?

    I wasn’t aware!

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment


 

Editorial Staff

Editor-in-Chief: Michael van der Galien
Managing Editor: Jason
Assistant Editor: Claudia



 



Listen to PoliGazette Radio on internet talk radio




 

Proud member of Moderate Blog Network, a FeedBurner Network.

Recent Comments

  • Kemal: Here,  Aram, let me help you.  BELOW ARE STATEMENTS MADE BY ATATURK DURING HIS GREAT SPEECH WHICH ARE...
  • Kemal: Aram, The article published in 1926 claims the statement attributed to Ataturk was made in 1923.  Ok, read...
  • utsu: "they now want to escalate the war in Afghanistan and go after Bin Laden and the mantra now is kill...
  • utsu: "Between February and March 2007, 20,000 more troops went to Iraq. The Anbar Awakening happened late in...
  • utsu: "war hero who was right about the surge in Iraq?" Was wrong about the war too. One bad judgement...

Partners