Here a quiz:

1)  What’s worse from a messaging perspective, “the public option” or “cap-and-trade”?

2) Tell me in one sentence what team Obama says is the benefit of passing a health care reform bill.

3)  Tell me in one sentence what team Obama says happens if we fail to pass the climate and clean energy bill.

On health care, no simple, repeated core message exists, so the whole effort is a muddle.  Obama needs to delete and reboot.  Let’s hope he does so Wednesday night.

On climate, at least we have one positive message:  clean energy jobs, jobs, jobs.  That is a key reason public support has held firm even in the face of a multimillion dollar campaign of fraud and disinformation by the fossil-fuel-funded right wing (see Yet another major poll finds “broad support” for clean energy and climate bill: “Support for the plan among independents has increased slightly” and Swing state poll finds 60% “would be more likely to vote for their senator if he or she supported the bill” and Independents support the bill 2-to-1).

Normally, however, a winning campaign has four messages, as I discussed in this post from a year ago, “Can Obama win with half a messaging strategy?“  Since team Obama got its messaging act together pretty fast after its near-fatal lameness of August 2008, I’m hopeful they will do the same after the near-fatal lameness of August 2009, since I don’t think they can deliver health security and energy security with half a message (or less).

Let me repeat what I consider to be Messaging 101, which apparently has been lost again by team Obama and progressive leaders.

Read more

[I'd be happy to forward to Van Jones any comments or words of support people have for him on this painful day.]

I am resigning my post at the Council on Environmental Quality, effective today.

On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide.

I have been inundated with calls — from across the political spectrum — urging me to “stay and fight.”

But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future.

It has been a great honor to serve my country and my President in this capacity. I thank everyone who has offered support and encouragement. I am proud to have been able to make a contribution to the clean energy future. I will continue to do so, in the months and years ahead.

With that statement issued just after midnight Saturday, the White House’s champion of clean energy jobs, Van Jones resigned.  The controversy over past statements was just too great.  The Politico reports:

Nancy Sutley, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, to which Jones was attached, accepted his resignation in a statement released early Sunday. “Over the last six months, he had been a strong voice for creating jobs that improve energy efficiency and utilize renewable resources,” she said. “We appreciate his hard work and wish him the best moving forward.”

I think the NYT lede in its story is just the kind of drama-driven reporting that has poisoned both media coverage and American politics:

In a victory for Republicans and the Obama administration’s conservative critics, Van Jones resigned as the White House’s environmental jobs “czar” on Saturday.

I suppose this may be seen as a “victory” if you are one of those who have no positive agenda for solving our energy and climate problems — see The Audacity of Nope: The GOP channels Groucho Marx, “Whatever it is, I’m against it.” But how can the paper of record declare this a victory for anyone?  This ain’t the Roman Coliseum.

Ryan Grim, writing at Huffington Post, notes:

During the presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly threw aides overboard who became political liabilities; White House observers saw Jones’ departure more as a matter of when rather than if.

His fate was sealed when Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs declined to defend him at a recent press conference:

Read more

The video is by Peter Sinclair, the guy who proved Anthony Watts knows as much about copyright laws as about climate science.

It bears repeating that 2005 is the warmest year on record using NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies data, which is almost certainly superior to other datasets (see “What exactly is polar amplification and why does it matter?“). In any case, barring a major volcano in the next several months, more records are on the way (see NOAA says “El Ni±o arrives; Expected to Persist through Winter 2009-10″³ “” and that means record temperatures are coming and this will be the hottest decade on record).

The video is by Peter Sinclair, the guy who proved Anthony Watts knows as much about copyright laws as about climate science.

It bears repeating that 2005 is the warmest year on record using NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies data, which is almost certainly superior to other datasets (see “What exactly is polar amplification and why does it matter?“).  In any case, barring a major volcano in the next several months, more records are on the way (see NOAA says “El Ni±o arrives; Expected to Persist through Winter 2009-10″³ “” and that means record temperatures are coming and this will be the hottest decade on record).