Three presidential candidates gathered at a forum in Los Angeles on Saturday to talk specifically about global warming and energy issues. It was the “first time in history” that this has happened, according to a press release from the League of Conservation Voters, which helped organize the event.
None of the newspapers that covered the forum seem to have used the first-time angle, though. In fact, the gathering drew little mainstream press relative to other campaign stops. The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The Associated Press were all there, so the coverage wasn’t trivial. On the other hand, the event was not televised and the only way to watch it live was via a Web cast from Grist, the online environmental magazine that sponsored the affair.
The relative lack of attention isn’t terribly surprising, given that only Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Dennis Kucinich (all Democrats) showed up, despite the fact that all the candidates from both major parties were invited. The dearth of publicity is also not surprising given the forum’s novelty, and it’s reasonable that the national press did not echo the claim that the gathering was a “first-ever.” I haven’t been able to verify that myself. Yet the fact remains that even light a few candidates, Saturday’s event set a new precedent for addressing environmental issues during a presidential campaign.
It is lamentable, then, that the AP and the two Times (New York and LA), covered the forum like they would any other campaign stop or stump speech, with only passing reference to its larger significance (though there was ample mention of the event’s concurrence with a major climate meeting in Spain). To it’s credit, The New York Times’ Christine Hauser summed up the situation in a pithy phrase, even if she did not have the space (it was the shortest article on the forum) to elaborate:
The candidates had previously released their proposals on global warming and energy, the focus of the forum. But the opportunity to reiterate them and take questions from a panel of experts in a state that is not holding an early primary highlighted the impact that environmental issues have taken in the campaign.
The Los Angeles Times published the longest account (it was in the paper’s backyard, after all) and seemed to find the most substance in the candidates’ words. (Appearing one-by-one on stage at the Wadsworth Theatre, they were each given ten minutes to make opening remarks and then answered questions from two panelists: David Roberts of Grist, and Mary Nichols of the California Air Resources Board.) “If the intent was to buff their green credentials,” wrote Cathleen Decker, “more than anything the gathering thrust into glaring relief the differing approaches” of the candidates. In this respect, Decker continued, the environment-specific gathering gave the dark horse Kucinich an advantage: “Unlike most of the candidate debates so far, where he has been relegated to the sidelines, the format Saturday gave him equal standing.”
(Of course, Kucinich also promised to give every person in the United States a publicly-funded job, and then didn’t seem to have any idea of how to back up that promise when challenged by Grist’s Roberts.)
There were other interesting sound bites. Edwards didn’t really elaborate on his existing energy platform, but repeatedly mentioned a “lack of backbone” on Capitol Hill regarding environmental legislation. Along those lines, Clinton seemed to be the most frank about what the largely pro-green audience could expect politicians to accomplish, asserting that Congress would never pass a bill that would please everybody.