Yule Heibel's Bookmarks tagged politics →  View Popular

It seems that the take-home point here is this: The Clinton campaign has made the case that Obama is nothing but rhetoric; he’s supposedly all words, while she’s all action. Our experiences showed us that their campaigns — at least in Seattle — were exactly the opposite. In their treatment of my students, Clinton’s campaign was all talk, while Obama’s was all walk.

It suggests to me that the Obama campaign’s appeal to younger people is not just because of Obama himself. It’s a campaign that treats young people like full adults. And across Washington state, Obama crushed Clinton, defeating her in every county in the state. It’s been a pattern repeated in every contest since.

When my students had trouble reaching the Clinton campaign in the run-up to the caucuses, I made a call to her national office. I figured that maybe they’d respond to a UW professor better than a student — which would be an error on their part, but still one that we might use to help our coverage. I told them we were having trouble reaching people — anyone — on the ground in Washington state with the Clinton campaign, and I implored them to make sure my request on behalf of my students for press access to Clinton’s event in Seattle received a response. They assured me I’d hear from them. I emphasized my point a second time. They kindly repeated that I would certainly hear from people on the ground here.

I’m still waiting for that call.

In our coverage of the Idaho and Washington state caucuses, there emerged a lean toward Obama in my students’ writing about the Democratic contest. This pro-Obama frame occurred for three reasons:

• Because some of the students have serious political crushes on him, even though they’ve tried to keep all this in check. He inspires them — and I haven’t sought to squelch this, being a prof interested in helping students become citizens.
• Because the class is set up as a blogging class, in which politics meets alternative journalism. So their opinion shines through in places, and this was fine as long as they didn’t cross over into fan mail.
• Because the Obama campaign treated us like pros — they called us back within minutes, set up interviews, got us press passes, went out of their way to make the campaign accessible. The Clinton campaign, in contrast, didn’t return a single phone call, didn’t provide press access, and did virtually nothing to encourage our coverage. It was either arrogance or disorganization on the Clinton campaign’s part.

With a few exceptions, no one on council has started to think about Toronto as a whole. The system discourages that at the best of times, never more so than now. The result has been a sharp drop in civic self-confidence; a growing sense Toronto has entered a downward spiral. The blame extends well beyond city hall, but the low level of debate, divisiveness, bitterness and triviality of council meetings has led to feeling that we're no longer able to deal with the problems we face.

The psychology of amalgamation hasn't created more solidarity between neighbourhoods, but a masochistic, let's-hate-Toronto attitude. But Toronto is us, and we are Toronto. In the decade since amalgamation, we have become our own worst enemy.

The hope is the winning city can be named within the next eight or nine months, with construction of gallery completed by 2011 or 2012 - a decade after the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien first announced it would build the gallery in the reconstituted 1932 Beaux Arts-style building on Wellington. The original construction cost for the refurbishment was $22-million, but by spring, 2006, the overall cost had risen to $45-million, which includes an estimated $11-million that has already spent on design, site preparation and management fees.

Last fall, numerous media reports indicated the Tories had killed the project. However, nothing official was declared and the resultant vacuum was filled with reports that the minority Harper government was considering establishing the gallery as, variously, an online museum, a touring showcase and, finally, as a permanent fixture in the huge EnCana Centre now under construction in downtown Calgary. (The portrait gallery is currently overseen by Library and Archives Canada, a Crown corporation, and its collection stored in a climate-controlled vault in Gatineau, Que.)

Nine cities are invited to compete for the prize of securing the portrait gallery. Toronto is on the list, along with Halifax, Quebec City, Ottawa-Gatineau, Montreal, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver. The catch: this will be a private/public partnership.

Translation: someone in the lucky city that wins gets to pay the bills so that Stephen Harper's government won't have to.

The federal government wants nine cities across Canada to compete for the right to host the national portrait gallery originally slated to open in Ottawa.

"Our government has set forth the notion that national cultural institutions do not necessarily have to be located in the national capital," said Heritage Minister Josée Verner at a news conference Friday announcing what she called "a bold and innovative step."

As for the politics of possibility, Nordhaus and Shellenberger make a case for a massive governmental program in developing cheap, clean energy, as the Defense Department did with microchips or jetliners. It won't happen in the private sector alone, since they "rarely initiate technological revolutions," and there is actually very little innovation going on in the energy sector today. By contrast, when the Pentagon in the 1960s effectively guaranteed the market for microchips, it touched off a revolution that drove down the costs and spread the technology to many sectors of the economy. "An investment of roughly $200 billion would bring the price of solar energy down to that of coal," they estimate.

The authors adopt a politics of hope, rather than fear. "Cautionary tales and narratives of eco-apocalypse tend to provoke fatalism, conservatism, and survivalism among voters -- not the rational embrace of environmental policies," they contend. "Young and grassroots environmentalists are more inspired by the vision of creating a new energy economy than regulating the old one." Got that Al Gore?