Blue Collar America in the Bull's Eye

This is verbatim from Slate.com's "Morning Papers" feature:

Climate Control

By Jesse Stanchak

Posted Sunday, Dec. 16, 2007, at 7:02 AM ET

The Washington Post leads with, and everyone else fronts, the end of the U.N. climate talks in Bali, where some surprising, last-minute concessions paved the way for a framework for negotiating new climate change accords over the next two years. The Los Angeles Times leads with the U.S. military's change of plans for reducing troop levels next year, saying troops will be concentrated in Baghdad as it pulls back soldiers from other parts of the country. The New York Times leads with the White House and NATO worrying about losing whatever gains they've made in Afghanistan over the last six years.

Spending two weeks in talks just to settle on a framework for negotiating a climate change pact over the next two years may seem like no great accomplishment to some. But every paper makes it clear that getting nearly 190 countries to agree on even this much required major concessions all around. The United States managed to nix language stipulating hard and fast emissions cuts for developed nations, and developing nations secured promises of financial and technological aid. The LAT says that just keeping the United States engaged in the talks constituted a victory for the United Nations. The NYT's piece, meanwhile, says the framework was agreed to with one eye looking beyond the Bush White House, in hopes that the next president will place a higher priority on addressing climate change.

And this is the key part, worth repeating:

The NYT's piece, meanwhile, says the framework was agreed to with one eye looking beyond the Bush White House, in hopes that the next president will place a higher priority on addressing climate change.

"Addressing climate change" = de-industrializing America. It's that simple.

Will the next President stand up for Middle America? Or will he, or she, sell out?