Candy Crowley, I want to start by congratulating you on the great job you did moderating the Town Hall Presidential Debate. But disappointed doesn't begin to express how I feel about a question you didn't choose from the audience. You had a chance get the candidates on record on how they will deal with climate change and you blew it.

Some great topics were debated last night, but unless Bob Schieffer changes his mind and adds global warming to his issue list in next week's foreign policy forum, this will be the first presidential election since before 1980 in which the presidential and vice presidential debate series did not include a direct question about climate change, environmental protection or conservation.

A whole bunch of us tried to make it easy for you. Over 160,000 signed petitions that went to both you and Jim Lehrer. Google and the Commission on Presidential Debate asked folks to weigh in on important topics for the Town Hall debate, and over 11,000 chose "What actions will you take to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions?" as the most popular question. You ignored all of us.

Bill Clinton's masterful speech to nominate Barack Obama summed up the philosophical difference between Democrats and Republicans saying, "We believe that 'We're all in this together' is a far better philosophy than 'You're on your own'.'' It's clear that these divergent views extend to the two parties' take on the rest of the world.

My colleague Andrew Hess has pulled together a great side by side comparison of the Ds and Rs platforms on Energy, the Environment, and Foreign Policy. There is a clear difference between the two that will impact our nation's role in an increasingly multi-polar interdependent world.

Democrats stress international cooperation, saying that "The greatest dangers we face--terrorism, nuclear proliferation, cyber and biological attacks, climate change, and transnational crime--cannot be solved by any one nation alone. Addressing these challenges requires broad and effective global cooperation."

On August 21, the committee charged with composing the GOP’s platform for the 2012 election season submitted their draft to the party for approval.  According to Fox News, the platform was “emphatically” given the nod on August 28^th.  While the usual news outlets have paid much attention to the sections of the platform concerning the party’s stances on abortion and gay marriage, the mainstream media has failed to address the Republican Party’s troubling take on the nexus between national security and climate change.

The language used by the GOP’s official platform is quite critical of the Obama Administration’s classification of climate change as a serious threat to national security. In fact, the new GOP platform states that the current national security strategy “elevates ‘climate change’ to the level of a ‘severe threat’ equivalent to foreign aggression.” If the GOP had done their homework, they would have encountered an overwhelming body of evidence coming from some impressive sources that outright contradicts their platform before it was approved and widely circulated.

I came across an interesting piece by Carter Eskew this week in the Washington Post. The post, "Compromises for Romney?" speculated about concessions Mitt Romney might have to make to please conservatives in his party if he wins the Republican nomination and is elected President this fall. Some of the speculation: John Bolton as Secretary of State; Newt Gingrich as U.N. ambassador; and Rick Santorum as attorney general.

It's going to be tough to lose the outstanding Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State in any case (as she's leaving after this term is up even if President Obama is re-elected). But I can't think of anyone I'd rather NOT see succeed her than John Bolton. He was refused confirmation as U.N. ambassador by the Senate in 2005 and 2006 (since he had expressed his belief that the U.N. shouldn't exist at all, that was hardly surprising) before finally getting the position during a recess appointment. Somehow, I don't think that having someone who opposes the U.N.'s very existence managing America's relationship with the rest of the world is a very bright idea. Bolton also said the decision to pull out of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was the "happiest moment" of his political career to date.