Ah, timing!  Yesterday I promised to address the environmental credentials of McCain, Obama and Clinton.  Then what appeared in my mailbox but the latest issue of Newsweek with a cover story that asked the question, "Who's The Greenest Of Them all?"

I still went to the candidates' websites and reviewed their positions.  (You can do the same thing by clicking on each candidate's name above...extra credit to those who actually visit the sites!)

My summary of the candidates' relative level of "green-ness" dovetails almost exactly with the magazine's.  Obama and Clinton are virtually identical in the major objectives of their energy and environmental proposals.  McCain is greener (he believes climate change is real!) than most Republicans but his position lacks detail and specifics.

The main thrust of the Clinton/Obama plans are:

--Reduce carbon emissions by 80% through use of a market-based cap and trade system.  The target date in both cases is 2050.

--Invest in clean energy alternatives and research. (Clinton-$50 billion; Obama- $150 billion.)  Clinton would pay for part of hers by closing tax loopholes on businesses.  Obama would reinvest part of the cap and trade revenues.

--Increase fuel efficiency. (Obama-52 mpg, Clinton-55 mpg.)

--Restore American leadership on the issue of climate change/global warming.

Clinton positions her issue summary as doing more than just taking care of the environment--it's also an opportunity to grow the economy.  She also reveals a more pragmatic bent by addressing the need to adapt to those climate changes we can't avert or have yet to reverse.

Obama addresses some issues Clinton doesn't touch on--organic and small farms, inner city issues, etc.  He also drills a bit deeper on some of the strategies he proposes, but not enough to tilt me in his direction. 

McCain, by contrast, sets no specific goals, talking in generalities on the extremely short issue summary.  He thinks it's a pretty good idea to limit carbon emissions...but how much, by when?  He thinks cars should get more efficient...but again he doesn't provide specific targets.  Frustrated by his lack of detail, I checked out a speech he gave on the topic and noted with interest that he positions the environment as a security issue and that he's very much pro-nuclear power (and he can pronounce it, too!).  Obama sees nuclear power as a lesser evil while Clinton views it as plain evil.

Since I'm not an expert in environmental issues, I found it useful to check out the opinions of the League of Conservation Voters, along with their lifetime ratings of the three candidates.  (Obama--96%; Clinton--90%; McCain--26%).  They haven't endorsed a particular candidate as of this writing.

To summarize, Clinton and Obama seem genuinely committed to effecting policy and pracitcal changes designed to combat climate change and to leverage American innovation in the process.  I'd say their positions are pretty much equal.  So if you prefer their approach to the enviroment, the decision will really come down to which person you feel would be more effective at leading, cajoling, mandating and effecting that change. 

McCain's acknowledgement that the issue is genuine is a positive, but frankly his lack of specifics makes me hesitant to believe that he is genuinely committed to doing the hard work, especially if it's unpopular with businesses.  Maybe that's just my 47-year-old cynicism speaking, but I believe if you're looking for a candidate who won't compromise on the environment, McCain's not your best choice.

On Monday I was talking with my brother, Darrell, about politics and the upcoming presidential election.  I asked him what was the single most important thing he wanted from the next president.

His response came without pause.  "Stop wasting my money." 

There's something so good about a visceral, uncalculated response.  I think Darrell's feelings are shared by a good many voters who feel like there's been a lot of waste in government lately.

Someone else at the table, when asked the same question, said, "Healthcare."  A good start, but I should have asked what specifically did the person want to see in terms of health care.

I know we're not all single issue voters, but there's a great deal to be said about understanding what issue is most important to you and then figuring out which candidate is best on the issue.

Tomorrow I'll try to suss out which candidate might be the best choice for Darrell based on that one criterion.  But today, I put the question to you--what's the single most important thing you want the next president to do?

Well, if you're up for it, dear readers--here is my take on the presidential candidates' positions on Iraq.  Tomorrow, I'll veer into lighter fare with a review of 21.

Let's start with John McCain.  His plan for the Iraq war is essentially a call for more boots on the ground.  He explains that the increased number of American soldiers will clear out the insurgents, provide a more secure environment for economic and political reconstruction, halt sectarian violence and dismantle al Qaeda. 

It's interesting to note that he's been calling for more troops since 2003.  That makes it easier to understand why he remains committed to the idea that the only solution is to "win the war" with more fighting, more soldiers, more time.  

His proposal also makes clear that his prediction of U.S. involvement in Iraq extending into decades, if not centuries, is the logical conclusion of a strategy that sees force as the only way to stabilize Iraq.

On the other end of the political spectrum, both Clinton and Obama are calling for rapid withdrawal of American troops (although, since we were recently talking about spin on the comments to this blog, I found it amusing that Hillary's website calls withdrawals "redeployment").

Clinton's four-pronged plan is less detailed than Obama's.  In addition to a phased withdrawal, she proposes appointing a UN "peace broker" to work with the Iraqi government--securing peace among the various tribal factions; focusing on humanitarian aid (as opposed to funding the Iraqi government); and pushing a diplomatic initiative in the area designed to restrict outside interference, stabilize Iraq's independent status and aid in reconstruction.

By contrast, Obama's plan provides more in the way of reasoning for his proposed actions.  He grounds the entire plan in his enduring opposition for war in Iraq.  But he is not merely saying, "the war was wrong, so we should leave." 

He states that the current strategy (surge) is not working.  He notes that the Iraqi government is failing to meet its targets and promises.  Thus he proposes a rapid, phased withdrawal of troops to pressure the Iraqi government to step up. 

The other components of his plan include a call for the government to redraw the constitution to include Sunnis (thereby reducing sectarianism); diplomatic pressure to keep Iran and Turkey out of Iraq as we withdraw; and focused spending to address humanitarian issues.

Both Clinton and Obama address the need to deal with Iraqi refugees but Obama specifically calls for us to live up to our pledge to accept 7000 refugees in the U.S.

Since Hal and I've been talking a bit about Biden's plan, I thought it worth providing a link to his proposal even though he's no longer in the race.  I don't think his plan was much different than Hillary's or Barack's in terms of rapid withdrawal, focus on reconstruction and job formation, and internationally-based diplomacy.

Where his plan does merit special attention is in the idea of dividing Iraq into sectarian regions, locally managed, under a strong federal government.  As part of that plan, he included a redrawn constitution that would include the currently disenfranchised Sunnis by guaranteeing them a percentage of the country's oil profits.  That's where Biden's experience on the Foreign Relations Committee allows for a type of proposal that more generalized (and less experienced) candidates lack.  I hope whomever the Democratic nominee is, he or she will bring Biden into the fold for advice and discussion.  He'd be an interesting idea for Secretary of State.

So that's it.  If you're for more boots on the ground--vote for McCain.  Of the two democrats currently running, I give Obama a slight edge for depth of reasoning and a more nuanced grasp of (or communication of) the entire situation.

I just hate it when the candidate I favor proposes policies I think are flawed.  That's just what's happened with Obama and the current mortgage crisis.

To put things in perspective, California had 57,000 foreclosure filings in January.  (A foreclosure filing is where the borrower is not making payments as agreed and so the bank files to take the property back.  It can be voluntary or involuntary as far as the borrower's concerned.)  That's 4/10ths of 1% of all the houses in the state or one in every 227 homes.  Pretty big number, but we're among the worst hit states because we had a rapid run-up in property values.

Also, before I pick Obama's plan apart, I should point out that at least he has a plan--rather than McCain's wait and see approach.  

However, as I mentioned yesterday, I agree with McCain's opinion that the government should not bail out either the banks that made bad lending decisions nor the individuals who made bad borrowing decisions.  Obama (and Hillary) disagrees with me.

His plan is based on the Dodd-Frank proposal, calling for creation of a government entity (with a $10 billion price tag) to do two things:

1.  Offer incentives to lenders for writing down the principal balance of mortgages where the loan balance is higher than the value of the property.

2.  Provide lower-cost financing for borrowers of those reduced mortgages.

(As a minor plus to this bad idea, Obama proposes that the borrower be taxed on the forgiven portion of the debt--a capital gain to the borrower.)

I don't favor this course of action for two reasons.  The first I covered in yesterday's blog.  We should keep the responsibility for these decisions with the people who made them and not spread it out to all taxpayers. 

Second, I don't think it addresses the actual problem.  Foreclosures are not triggered by upside-down property value to loan ratios.  They are triggered by a borrower's inability to make a monthly payment as promised.  If any aid should be given to borrowers, it would be better utilized in the form of refinanced loans that reduce payments and lock in interest rates.  Borrowers who choose to walk away from their homes because they're worth less than the mortgage, despite being able to pay the monthly payment, should face the consequences of that decision.

There are several other facets of Obama's housing/economic stimulus plan.  Three of them are good ideas.  He calls for:

--extending unemployment payments (necessary as unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment continues to rise);

--streamlining oversight of banks and financial institution by matching the overseeing entity with lines of business rather than type of institution;

--providing a mortgage tax credit for middle-income earners who don't itemize.

If it weren't for the bailout portion of the plan, I'd be fairly happy with Obama's proposal.  As it stands, it doesn't discourage me from supporting him, but it does highlight a key area where I tend to disagree with Democrats.

Turns out my estimates of the number of cauci was wildly optimistic.  Best estimates are that 359,000 people participated in the caucus for both Democrats (239,000) and Republicans (120,000).  Considering how much emphasis is placed on Iowa; the fact that no one has won the Presidency without being in the top 3 of his party's Iowa finishers; and the huge amount of spin that the press puts on the results of Iowa--that's a lot of power for a tiny portion of our nation.

For those of you keeping score at home, two Democratic candidates dropped out after poor showings in yesterday's caucus: Biden and Dodd.

The two individuals wearing the "victor's mantle" from Iowa are Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama.  You can link to their victory speeches by clicking on their names.

Both men chose the same theme for their speech--that America is ready for, indeed calling for, a change.  The difference lies not so much in their theme, but in their beliefs and their rhetoric.

Huckabee's type of change seems to be harkening back to a better time in America's history.  He talked about raising hopes and dreams for our children and their future.  Keep in mind, however mild he comes across, this man is on the far right of the political spectrum.  He is on record as wanting America to be a "Christian Nation."  He kept all of that out of his speech but a tiny hint crept in when he talked about people of different beliefs.  Referred, in fact, to them as "the others" and said it's not about "pushing the other's back" but bringing them along.  So, the "others" are wrong either way.

Obama's idea of change was more idealistic.  He spoke a great deal of hope.  "Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it, to work for it, and to fight for it."  Unlike Huckabee, Obama spoke of specific policy changes including ending the war in Iraq.  And he closed with the inspiring statement that we are not a bunch of red states and a bunch of blue states, but the United States of America.

Of course, it's entirely possible that neither of these men will be their party's nominee.  There's still a lot of road to cover and New Hampshire is next.

For Huckabee, that means far fewer faith-based voters and stiff competition from John McCain.  For Obama, it means facing a stronger Edwards and a still-flush Clinton.

Still, it's worth listening to both men's speeches.  I have a hunch it could be these two.  If you do listen to Obama, tell me who he reminds you of more--JFK or MLK?