Hillary Clinton and Keystone XL Pipeline

Dear Friends,

As you have probably already heard, Hillary Clinton has changed her mind and decided that she can take a position on the Keystone XL Pipeline and the good news is she opposes the pipeline.  I am very happy that she has finally reached the correct decision, but I remain wary of her as a true environmental advocate.

Her statement lacks a certain clarity and enthusiasm.

I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone XL pipeline as what I believe it is: A distraction from the important work we have to do to combat climate change, and, unfortunately from my perspective, one that interferes with our ability to move forward and deal with other issues.

The pipeline is not just a "distraction" that "interferes" with other things.  Approving the pipeline sets fossil fuel extraction, even the dirties of fossil fuels, as a priority over alternative non-fossil energy.  It is not a mere distraction.  It is the absolute wrong thing to do.

While I am happy that she finally is opposing the pipeline, Martin O'Malley summed up my feelings very well.

On issue after issue--marriage equality, drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants, children fleeing violence in Central America, the Syrian refugee crisis, and now the Keystone Pipeline, Secretary Clinton has followed--not forged--public opinion. Leadership is about stating where you stand on critical issues, regardless of how they poll or focus group.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Moving Hillary Clinton to the Left

Dear Friends,

There are two interesting articles at Time.com by Rana Foroochar.  One is entitled "How Elizabeth Warren is Yanking Hillary Clinton to the Left" (here) and another entitled, "This Could be Hillary Clinton's Economic Policy" (here).  MSNBC also published an article by Alex Seitz-Weld and Suzy Khimm entitled "Is this Hillary Clinton's Economic Policy" (here).  Both the articles about Secretary Clinton's economic policy discuss a recent report by the Center For American Progress, a pro-Clinton think tank.

Interestingly enough in the last weeks during which there have been terrorist attacks in Nigeria by Boko Haram, terrorist attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish community in Paris, Republican congressional efforts to make cuts in Social Security, Republican congressional efforts to push the Keystone XL Pipeline, the initiation of an inquiry by the International Criminal Court into potential war crimes in the most recent Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and the Republican efforts to dilute the impact of the Dodd-Frank regulations on Wall Street, Hillary Clinton has been completely absent from the news and has only made one public statement.  That statement was in the form of a tweet. "Attacking financial reform is risky and wrong.  Better for Congress to focus on jobs and wages for middle class families."

First, it is clear that Secretary Clinton is steering clear from taking a position on anything that is or may be in the future controversial.  The national media and virtually all politicians are refusing to talk about the terrorist attacks by Boka Haram or the victims of the latest violence between Israel and Palestine, even though in both cases far more innocent people were killed.  I cannot help but think that the lack of outrage in the United States and other western countries over the deaths of innocent Nigerians and Palestinians has a lot to do with the otherness attached to those people.  How can you explain the incredible difference in response to those atrocities and what just happened in Paris?  In any case, that is a question too hot for Secretary Clinton to deal with.

Of course the issues of freedom of speech raised by the attack on Charlie Hebdo raise a lot of difficult questions as well.  Secretary Clinton,  a hawk who voted for the Iraq war and for the Patriot Act twice and a member of the Obama administration that has attacked freedom of the press with a vigour normally only seen in Republican administrations, has not been a strong advocate for freedom of expression and would have great difficulty navigating the difficult issues raised by the recent Paris attacks to say nothing of the crack down on freedom of expression following the Charlie Hebdo attack.

I am actually surprised that she has not made a statement condemning the opening of an investigation by the International Criminal Court into the latest Israeli/Palestinian violence.  Normally she defends Israel regardless of what it has done.  I am at a loss to explain her silence on this issue although one might posit that there are more and more Democrats that want to hold both the Palestinians and the Israelis responsible for their violent actions, so perhaps she thinks her silence will not offend anybody.

Of course, Secretary Clinton is maintaining her silence on the Keystone XL Pipeline.  This issue is a symbolic one pitting the environment against short term profits for giant oil companies.  Secretary Clinton's ties to big business and Wall Street make it difficult if not impossible for her to oppose the pipeline.  I should note she has not commented on the fact that 2014 was the warmest year on record either.

Secretary Clinton chose, as her only public comment, to tweet about the Republican efforts to dilute the regulations imposed on Wall Street by the Dodd-Frank legislation.  Her comment was limited to a tweet and hence could not contain any real substance.  What a perfect way to try to walk the fine line between her Wall Street backers and Elizabeth Warren.

It is the issue of Secretary Clinton's closeness to Wall Street that made the articles about a report by the Center for American Progress, a think tank full of friends of Hillary and Bill, so interesting to me.   The two articles about the report cited above were clear about the ties of the think tank to the Clintons and their advisors and the fine line that the report walks to not offend Wall Street while trying to sound like Elizabeth Warren.  The report was written by a group of Clinton loyalists lead by Larry Summers.  This group are deregulators and people that supported NAFTA and other "free trade" agreements.  They share in the blame for the great recession and the ever increasing gap in wealth and income in the United States.  In light of the popularity of Elizabeth Warren, they and Secretary Clinton are trying to reinvent themselves as populists.

I am not yet convinced that Secretary Clinton can actually reinvent herself as a populist and true liberal.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Dear Friends,

I watched Meet the Press from last Sunday and was very disappointed in Senator Klobuchar in her response to where she stands on the Keystone XL Pipeline.  Here is her response:

Well, I believe that this project has merit. But I still don't think that Congress should be in the business of deciding where a pipeline is located. I think the president needs to make a decision. A lot of us are frustrated that it has taken this long.

I believe the proper response to that question is "I oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline because it is terrible for the environment, it will not provide any energy independence, it will only provide 35 permanent jobs, and it will raise gasoline prices in Minnesota."

Senator Klobuchar also failed to correct Senator Barrasso's statement that it would create 42,000 new jobs.  The statistic that he was referring to has been proven to be incorrect many times and refers to job years created during the construction period and is about 35,000.  A job year is one job for one year so if the job exists for three years of construction that was counted as three jobs.

Senator Klobuchar said that she was frustrated that it has taken so long to make a decision.  I am frustrated that President Obama has taken so long too, but I am willing to say he should reject the pipeline.  Senator Klobuchar simply says he should make a decision.  Apparently she has no opinion on the pipeline other than it has merit which sounds a lot like support.  I think that she has a bad case of now I am in a leadership position so I should not say anything too definitive.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Hillary Clinton and the XL Pipeline

Dear Friends,

It is well established that Hillary Clinton refuses to say what her position is on the Keystone XL Pipeline.  I find her reluctance to disclose her position a really bad sign and support for my position that she is a opportunist and not someone with strongly held views that she will support.  A little research turns up some interesting stories.  Here are some in chronological order.

There was an article in The Daily Beast just about two years ago entitled "Clinton's Environmental Failure" (here).  I found this paragraph from that article particularly interesting:

But the rumor is that Clinton’s State Department is nonetheless about to recommend approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which the top climate scientists in the nation have unanimously called a terrible idea. As far as I know, though, Clinton’s subordinates haven’t reached out to ask them why. For more than a year now, it’s been one of Washington’s worst-kept secrets that Clinton wants the pipeline approved. And why not? Its builder, TransCanada, hired her old deputy campaign manager as its chief lobbyist and gave lobbying contracts to several of her big bundlers. Leaked emails show embassy officials rooting on the project; it’s classic D.C. insiderism. (And, weirdly, her rumored successor is just as involved—Susan Rice has millions in stock in TransCanada and other Canadian energy companies.)

The next is an article in Politifact.com from March 5, 2014 entitled "Do Bill Clinton and George Bush Support the Keystone XL Pipeline" (here).  Apparently the American Petroleum Institute ran an ad in several states indicating that while there is gridlock in Washington, the Keystone XL Pipeline was an issue that had bipartisan support and specifically indicated that Bill Clinton and George Bush both supported it.  The article traces Bill Clinton's support to a speech he gave that appears to support the pipeline and indicates that Bill Clinton has never indicated that he does not support the pipeline.  Since I approach both Bill and Hillary Clinton with a rather cynical attitude that they are both opportunists and do not want to take positions, the language used in the speech is ambiguous.  I suspect Bill Clinton is trying to sit on the fence and be able to say he supported it or he did not depending on how the wind blows in the future.

There are two very recent articles about a speech that Secretary Clinton gave to the League of Conservation Voters, a group that is strongly opposed to the Keystone XL Pipeline.  The CBS news article (here) focused on Secretary Clinton's refusal to comment on the pipeline and the fact that just before that dinner she had attended a fundraiser for Senator Landrieu who is a very vocal proponent of the Keystone XL Pipeline.  In fact her entire strategy for winning re-election (which did not work) was to show how supportive she was of the pipeline.  The Think Progress article (here) in addition to talking about Secretary Clinton's refusal to take a position of the Keystone XL Pipeline focused on her references to fracking.  She did not use the work fracking and her words were at best platitudes about the potential problems with extraction of shale gas.  There was no outright condemnation of fracking.

I am forced to conclude that on two issues that I feel are critical to the future of the world, Secretary Clinton is failing to take a strong pro-environment stance and failing to be the leader that we need.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal