CSNbbs

Yep, she's going to announce her position...soon.

So mark your calendar, although I'm not certain when soon is. I suppose it depends on what the definition of soon is.

Cynicism aside, the Hill does face a conundrum on Keystone. On the one hand, the environmental wing, led by billionaire money man Tom Steyer, is dead set against the pipeline. Of the opposite position is the union's who want the jobs that Keystone. Which one will she choose?

Back on the cynical tack, I suspect that the Hill is feeling a little pressure from Joe Biden who is courting the unions in his consideration of declaring. So the Hill needs to keep the unions in a holding pattern as long as possible. Yes we'll have to wait to find out what soon means.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/17/politics/h...-pipeline/

Union leaders and the DNC are bedmates. They will Endorse Whomever the Democrat candidate is with No questions asked. The main thing is Union Membership is far more diverse and generally can think and vote for Themselves without the Leaders influence.

Would not surprise me a bit that she supports it. It would be a perfect issue for her to make gains with independents without really harming her much with her base.

(09-21-2015 05:55 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]Would not surprise me a bit that she supports it. It would be a perfect issue for her to make gains with independents without really harming her much with her base.

All she has to do is point out the ecological risks associated with transporting the oil by rail. Plus it distinguishes her from Obama, painting a picture that she is a rational environmentalist.

Yes or no?

(09-21-2015 06:53 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2015 05:55 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]Would not surprise me a bit that she supports it. It would be a perfect issue for her to make gains with independents without really harming her much with her base.

All she has to do is point out the ecological risks associated with transporting the oil by rail. Plus it distinguishes her from Obama, painting a picture that she is a rational environmentalist.

There really is next to no downside for her to support it, other to than to incur more of Obama's wrath. A breakthrough in one of the Clinton scandals is sure to follow her support for keystone.

(09-21-2015 08:58 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote: [ -> ]


Yes or no?

Yuk !

(09-21-2015 09:03 AM)200yrs2late Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2015 06:53 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2015 05:55 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]Would not surprise me a bit that she supports it. It would be a perfect issue for her to make gains with independents without really harming her much with her base.

All she has to do is point out the ecological risks associated with transporting the oil by rail. Plus it distinguishes her from Obama, painting a picture that she is a rational environmentalist.

There really is next to no downside for her to support it, other to than to incur more of Obama's wrath. A breakthrough in one of the Clinton scandals is sure to follow her support for keystone.

Agreed.

(09-21-2015 09:03 AM)200yrs2late Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2015 06:53 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2015 05:55 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]Would not surprise me a bit that she supports it. It would be a perfect issue for her to make gains with independents without really harming her much with her base.

All she has to do is point out the ecological risks associated with transporting the oil by rail. Plus it distinguishes her from Obama, painting a picture that she is a rational environmentalist.

There really is next to no downside for her to support it, other to than to incur more of Obama's wrath. A breakthrough in one of the Clinton scandals is sure to follow her support for keystone.

Well, except money-man and wanna be king maker Steyer wouldn't be pleased. He may throw his support and bags of cash behind Sanders or Biden over this.

Who knows.

(09-21-2015 10:29 AM)CardFan1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2015 08:58 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote: [ -> ]


Yes or no?

Yuk !

So she's probably for it but against the pipeline.

HRC has apparently come out against Keystone for some indeterminable reason.

(09-22-2015 07:05 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]HRC has apparently come out against Keystone for some indeterminable reason.

I was with the others in thinking that she would do for environmentalist Luddites what Obama did for gay rights... stake a disingenuous position for political reasons that she'd intend to later switch prior to the subsequent election cycle.

Very poor move IMO. Keystone is an issue that resonates with independents. The GOP should POUND her on this.

(09-22-2015 07:05 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]HRC has apparently come out against Keystone for some indeterminable reason.

Following public opinion instead of forging public opinion. It's an election year and she's a politician.

(09-23-2015 06:51 AM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2015 07:05 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]HRC has apparently come out against Keystone for some indeterminable reason.

Following public opinion instead of forging public opinion. It's an election year and she's a politician.

But the flow of oil in its current form via rail has and will continue to pose environmental risks far greater than the pipeline. This decision forces me towards two possible theories;

1. That the cost benefit analysis of denouncing Keystone was minimal to non-existent. The oil is still flowing but off the visible media spectrum.

2. That the railroad lobby is stronger than I suspected and is willing to partner with HRC to maintain this transport contact.

Wife posted this on FB yesterday.

Quote:breaking news... hillary opposes laying pipe. shocking.

(09-23-2015 07:00 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-23-2015 06:51 AM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2015 07:05 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]HRC has apparently come out against Keystone for some indeterminable reason.

Following public opinion instead of forging public opinion. It's an election year and she's a politician.

But the flow of oil in its current form via rail has and will continue to pose environmental risks far greater than the pipeline. This decision forces me towards two possible theories;

1. That the cost benefit analysis of denouncing Keystone was minimal to non-existent. The oil is still flowing but off the visible media spectrum.

2. That the railroad lobby is stronger than I suspected and is willing to partner with HRC to maintain this transport contact.

Yeah, I figure it's more along the lines of #2. Hillary and the current admin are hiding behind the global warming stuff, but most of the time it comes back to money and how is throwing it their way.

(09-23-2015 06:51 AM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2015 07:05 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]HRC has apparently come out against Keystone for some indeterminable reason.

Following public opinion instead of forging public opinion. It's an election year and she's a politician.

And, we put politicians in leadership roles rather than leaders.

Regarding the speculation that she'd support the pipeline, I think this is an indication that she sees herself at risk with Sanders and Biden in the race.