( – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

With the February 5th primary election approaching rapidly, in which voters in California and 21 other states will pick which presidential candidates represent each party, we have a rare opportunity to make a monumental decision.

For the first time in years, we have an opportunity to elect a president who will give the global climate crisis the level of attention that is required to tackle it.

But how are we to know where the candidates stand on global warming, if reporters simply refuse to ask the right questions? Of the 2,938 questions asked of the presidential candidates since January 2007, just 6 mentioned global warming (source: League of Conservation Voters).

So the California League of Conservation Voters is taking matters into our own hands. Read on….

The California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) has asked presidential candidates four critical questions about global warming, in short:

1. If elected, will you allow states to lead on global warming, in the way that California has?
2. Will you support a cap on greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2020 and an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050?
3. Will you support an all-out federal/state cooperative effort to rapidly expand investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy?
4. Will you support a federal program to impose maximum technologically feasible, cost-effective controls on ships, trains, and trucks to reduce air pollution that causes global warming and accelerates melting of polar ice caps?

California’s voters, and those throughout the nation, need as much information as possible when deciding which presidential candidate to support. That’s why we’re asking candidates these tough questions.

We’ve asked the presidential candidates to provide their answers by Friday. We’ll let you know before Tuesday what happens.

Read the full text of the questions here. (The press release is here.)

Sign up for CLCV’s e-alert list to be notified when the candidates provide their answers.

(Cross-posted to CLCV Blog and DailyKos — please recommend!)

____________

Jason Gohlke, California League of Conservation Voters

I’ve been a proud member of the San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters (AKA the League of Young Voters) since we were doing bus trips to Reno and Vegas back in 2004. We’ve made voter guides for the last six elections. We print up thousands of them and hit the streets to spread the word. Here’s our mission statement:

We are a national organization that works in key cities and states to make politics relevant, fun, and meaningful to young people. We meet young people where they are, work on issues that affect their lives, and provide tools and training to make them viable players and winners in the political game.

See below the jump for our endorsements on the February ballot. See the complete guide at theballot.org/2008/sf, including a beautiful printable PDF.

Check us out IRL:

• Election Night party: 2192 Folsom @ 18th St. 8pm – midnight. We’ll watch the election results on the big screen, and discuss it all live on Pirate Cat Radio. 87.9 FM or streaming online at piratecatradio.com.
• League General Meetings: every 3rd Tuesday, starting 2/19. 7-9pm. Red Ink Studios, 1035 Market @ 6th St. Check www.theleague.com/sf for updates.
• League of Pissed Off Voters Radio Roundtable on Pirate Cat Radio: Fridays 4-6pm, starting 2/8 on 87.9 FM or streaming online at piratecatradio.com.

Democratic Primary: No consensus. Barack just missed the 66% threshold. But if several of our members weren’t scattered around the country working or volunteering on his campaign, he would’ve gotten it. Also we voted before Kucinich and Edwards dropped out. Dennis just nosed out Edwards for second place, and Gravel beat Hillary for fourth.

Green Primary: Cynthia McKinney – She’s a rarity: a true radical with an impressive D.C. resume. And unlike Ralph Nader, she’s actually a Green Party member and working to build the party.

California Propositions

Prop 91: Hell no – Wants to use the gas tax for new roads only–oh wait, that’s already a law.

Prop 92: Yes – Cap community college fees & guarantee funding.

Prop 93: Yes – Shorter term limits, while keeping politicians focused on lawmaking–instead of alternating elections between the state Assembly and Senate.

Props 94-97: Hell no! – 17,000 more slot machines? Big $$$ for rich tribes, a little $ for the state, and less environmental and labor protections.

San Francisco Propositions

Prop A: Yes – $185 million bond for City Parks? Sure, charge it to the City’s credit card.

Prop B: No – Early pension $ for old cops? We need young, cops who are from SF.

Prop C: No – Vague wish to turn Alcatraz into a non-specific peace center.

Hey all.  Sitting here in the spin room at the Kodak Theater prior to tonight’s Democratic debate.  The place is kind of swamped with media, and I guess Blitzer’s doing his live show just outside, so there are a lot of sign-holders afoot.

Earlier today I was down at Los Angeles Trade Technical College, a community college near downtown, to watch a townhall meeting with Senator Barack Obama.  A lot of his Southern California supporters were on hand, including Assemblyman Ted Lieu, labor leader Maria Elena Durazo, Congressmen Xavier Becerra and Adam Schiff, LA City Councilmembers Yvonne Burke and Bill Rosendahl, and State Senators Dean Florez, Gil Cedillo, and Majority Leader Gloria Romero.  I have as much respect for Senators Cedillo and Romero as anyone in the State Senate.  They have been at the forefront of taking on tough issues; in the case of Sen Romero, prison and sentencing reform (Obama expressed support for eliminating the crack/cocaine powder sentencing and for a more intelligent criminal justice system that deals with nonviolent offenders in a different way), and in the case of Sen. Cedillo, immigration measures like driver’s licenses and the DREAM Act (which Obama said he would sign).  It means a lot to me that they are on board Obama’s campaign.

More…

After a pre-program which included all Spanish-language music (LA Trade Tech is a heavily Latino and black college), the overarching them was one of unity.  The very first thing Obama stressed in his opening remarks was the black-brown divide.  There were several signs passed out by the campaign that said “Si se puede.”  And he again talked about how he abhored the divisive tone of the immigration debate, where we “let lawmakers turn us against each other.”  He talked about helping the struggles of the middle and lower classes as “the cause of my life” (a pull from John Edwards?), and told the crowd that “you are determined to make something of yourselves – you just need the government to provide a little help so you can realize your dreams.”  The podium carried the sign “Reclaiming the American Dream,” which is new messaging AFAIK.

After remarks which covered health care, education reform, relief for homeowners caught in the mortgage crisis, and making college affordable, Sen. Obama took questions.  The first was about the Iraq war and yielded familiar comments; the second, about homelessness, was a completely new topic to hear in this campaign.  I think Obama’s answer was key. (paraphrase):

“We must build more shelters, but we also need to look at how we prevent more homeless.  A quarter of the homeless are veterans who come back from war with PTSD or brain trauma, they don’t get the help they need, and they self-medicate with alcohol or drugs.  So we need to fix that.  But we have an issue with mental health services generally in this country.  I want to see mental health parity.  Insurers need to cover mental health the same way they do physical health.  Because depression can be as debilitating an illness as a broken arm, and probably more.  It will save us money in the long run, because all types of services come into play when you deal with homelessness – police, EMT, the judicial system, our jails, etc.  Another thing you’re seeing is more homeless families on the street, because the government has gotten out of the affordable housing business.  We need an affordable housing trust fund so that people of modest means can find a place to live in their communities.”

I don’t think you can read the response to that question and say that Obama is somehow a Reagan disciple.  His State Senate district in Chicago faced these issues head-on.  This is not typically a plank in someone’s platform.  Politicians don’t often talk about homelessness for whatever reason.  But he showed an understanding of the issue and it really appeared that he would take it seriously were he to become President.

Other questions included Darfur, making college affordable, immigration, K-12 and early childhood education (which Obama stressed as very important), and the economy.  Another question that jumped out was about racial profiling.  The questioner was very animated about it, and apparently there was a recent incident on campus.  Obama said that he was the only candidate who’s ever passed a racial profiling bill, which got the support of both parties in the Illinois State Senate.  Police departments learned to work with the law and believed that it aided their performance and showed areas where they needed to improve.

Unfortunately, we don’t have a political system, and certainly not a political media, that pays attention to these issues.  But I do believe that this is how regular people want to make their choices.  They get a load of crap tossed at them about superficial issues and there’s a lot of clutter to cut through.  But people have real questions and real values they want to see expressed in a President, certainly more than they’re getting now.  If the media listened for a change to what answers people were actually seeking, perhaps they would provide them.

Moveon has 575,000 California activsts:

Spurred by John Edwards’s withdrawal from the race on Wednesday, MoveOn surveyed a sample of its members to gauge endorsement interest, according to a source with knowledge of the group’s operations. Then MoveOn set a deadline of 11 am Thursday for members to back a virtual endorsement vote. If a majority support the idea, virtual balloting will run overnight, open only to the group’s 3.2 million activists, and an endorsement could be announced by Friday.

Your ballot will be hitting your inbox shortly. Looking at the movement in the Daily Kos poll, I can see Obama meeting the revised, 2/3 threshold.

UPDATE: Here’s the email, they are also doing a running phone verification sample to ensure nobody’s cheating:

Dear MoveOn Member,

P.S. If you want more information about the candidates before voting, one good source is the Democratic debate on CNN tonight at 8:00 p.m. Eastern.

Tomorrow, I’ll have the chance to sit down with Mayor Gavin Newsom to talk about a range of issues. I’m hoping to get video and/or audio of the interview up sometime in the late afternoon Friday.

One thing that will be sure to come up is the health care debate. Newsom commented on that issue a little over a month ago, and I’m sure he will have a lot more to say on the subject.  Also, Feb 12 will be the fourth anniversary of his letter to the SF county clerk requesting her to “provide marriage licenses on a non-discriminatory basis, without regard to gender or sexual orientation.”

Newsom is also a very vocal supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton. I think the Tuesday election might come up. But, are there any questions that you’d like to ask Mayor Newsom?

From Rasmussen:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in California shows Hillary Clinton with a very narrow three-percentage point lead over Barack Obama. The survey was conducted in the hours immediately following Florida’s Presidential Primary and before John Edwards dropped out of the race.

Taken with Matier and Ross:

On the Democratic side, the combined results of three nightly samplings of 400 different voters – for Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday – found Hillary Rodham Clinton at 36 percent, Obama at 31 percent and John Edwards at 12 percent.

But when taken alone, Sunday’s tracking – just a day after Obama’s big win in the South Carolina primary – had Obama leading Clinton, 35 percent to 32 percent, with Edwards’ share growing to 16 percent. And pretty much the same numbers came up Monday.

The momentum is for change and growing.