Joe Klein gets an interesting quote from Hillary Clinton on the political difference between her and Barack Obama's energy plans
Just before our interview, Clinton gave a speech launching her energy-independence proposal. It would drastically reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by auctioning off permits to pollute and is similar to Obama's — but Obama has added a fillip of honesty by telling his audiences that the program might result in higher energy prices. I asked Clinton why she hadn't been similarly honest, and she immediately turned it around: Obama wanted to spend the proceeds of the pollution auction — perhaps as much as $50 billion — on alternative-energy research and development. "I have committed to putting money from that auction into programs to ... cushion the economic impact on working and poor families," she said. And then she added scornfully, "So if you want to go and get some debating point telling people this is going to cost you money, then I don't think you've thought through the policy as carefully as you could ... This is going to be a tough transition. It's got to be done politically. One of the ways to make it politically palatable is to rebut the Republican talking point that ... it's another huge tax increase on Americans. You know what? It isn't."
Now, I think it's an open question whether the mere act of making a policy something other than a giant tax increase will have any impact once the Republicans begin calling it a giant tax increase. But if you do believe that the substance of policies flows directly into the politics of policies, Clinton's argument here seems pretty convincing.
Indeed, similar thinking is on exhibit in her health care plan too, where protection of current insurance and expansion of choices were clearly the political arguments that guided much of the policy's development. In general, her domestic policies aren't very different than those of her competitors, but in the places where they diverge, they diverge in ways that make them a bit politically smarter, a bit more palatable to particular interest groups, a bit more fit for the argument that will inevitably arise. The variations aren't huge, but they do point to some very serious thinking in the campaign that integrates the need for bold legislation with the obstacles to its passage.
