The FULL clip of Clinton's Keystone pipeline response

[BainsBane]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/hillary-clinton-keystone-xl-pipeline/

I'm not going to second guess President Obama. . ."

[MannyGoldstein]

1. She happily attacked Obama's reluctance

to arm "Syrian rebels", and so forth.

I think we all know what's going on here.

[winter is coming]

2. +1. The longer she sits on that fence, the sharper it will become. n/t

[snagglepuss]

18. The longer she sits on that fence, the sharper it will become

What a great line.

[TwilightGardener]

9. "'Don't do stupid shit' is not an organizing principle". Yup.

No problem making her disagreements with him known...until now?

[AtomicKitten]

12. checkmate

great point

[beam me up scottie]

17. Thread over.

[JackInGreen]

19. Sir?

You dropped your mic...sir?

[George II]

44. When?

[MannyGoldstein]

45. E.g.,

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/

[George II]

46. That is "happily"?

And it's not an "attack", its an expression of HER opinion.

I guess you didn't see this in the that opinion piece: "Clinton had many kind words for the “incredibly intelligent” and “thoughtful” Obama, and she expressed sympathy and understanding for the devilishly complicated challenges he faces."

[hollysmom]

3. this really bothers me, Her answer is not good enough for me.

[PoliticAverse]

4. Obama hasn't made a decision on it yet, her offering an opinion now wouldn't be "second guessing".

[Agschmid]

6. Yah okay... But.

She clearly does have an opinion, and she clearly wants to be president. I don't think it's a question she should avoid answering.

[George II]

30. He hasn't?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/senate-fails-to-override-obamas-keystone-pipeline-veto.html?_r=0

Senate Fails to Override Obama’s Keystone Pipeline Veto

[PoliticAverse]

33. That was a Republican attempt to bypass the approval process. n/t

[Agschmid]

5. My mom was there today...

She said she was unimpressed by that answer, but she will continue to support her for now.

Apparently there was an odd heckling type question at the end? Haven't heard much about that yet?

I do honestly wish she would just say "Yes, I support it"... It would make her life 80% easier.

[BainsBane]

7. Whatever people decide

They should see the full clip rather than a quote from the end selected to promote a certain agenda.

[Agschmid]

8. Fair.

[Armstead]

39. The full quote promotes a certain agenda

unfortunately it's not the "I'll be honest with you about what I believe and will do if elected" agenda.

[BainsBane]

40. You seem to think the decision is so easy

If it were, why has Obama taken so long? There are environmental concerns on one hand and jobs on the other. There is also the issue of the rights of people in places like Nebraska where the pipeline is meant to cross.

If being president were just about having an opinions, that would make me the best president cause I have all kinds of opinions. Only I'd suck at the job. When your opinions make an impact on the lives of real people, they actually matter. It's not just hypothetical. Clinton runs a good chance of actually becoming president, which means she will be expected to delver on what she promises during the campaign. The vast majority of what Bernie promises will never come about, but he doesn't worry about that. It's all hypothetical. He can say whatever and it has no impact.

[Armstead]

41. It's a balancing act

You're correct. Presidents once in office have to be deliberative, and have a weigh issues.

But they also have opinions, and those opinions shape what they're likely to pursue.

I assume, for example, Hillary would not appoint a rabid right wing anti-choice Clarence Thomas/Scalia type of justice to the Supreme Court. Why? Because she has expressed opinions on the subject. I also assume she would veto legislation sent to her to Kill Obamacare. Why? because she has expressed opinions on the subject.

Both of those issues do have nuances. Where does one draw the line on an acceptable justice, for example. What might be the difference between a legitimate tweak to healthcare and an attempt to undermine it?

But she has chosen to give positions on certain issues that indicate the framework she wold operate under, priorities, etc. Therefore, voters basically know what they'll be getting, even if her decision may ultimately have to moderated once when in office.

She should do the same on other difficult issues like Keystone and the TPP. If she's inclined to support Keystone, she should make that clear before elected, so voters who care know what they're voting for. If she thinks the "Free Trade" agenda has done a great job for the economy, and thinks we need more of it, she should be honest about that too.

Some will agree with her. Some will disagree. Some won;t care. But evading tough issues is a problem.

[kcjohn1]

10. Can't believe

There are people here defending her response. Let's be real. She is not speaking out because of respect for Obama. It's purely political.

What should really concern her supporters is this amateurish response. There were better non committal answer such as "Review is still ongoing, and I will reserve judgement until study on impact on environment is complete". Her response just insults the voter regardless if they approve of Keystone.

[BainsBane]

11. I agree it's not the best response

but it also isn't as bad as it was made out to be in the other thread. Here at least you can see what she actually said, in full.

[SunSeeker]

13. Thanks for the full clip. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

14. LOL

[Purveyor]

15. Right... eom

[Cheese Sandwich]

16. K&R!

I don't even know what that means but I know you say it for good posts.

[beam me up scottie]

21. I'm sending this to the greatest!

[JI7]

22. she is trying to get the union endorsements

who support this . i disagree with her though. she should come out against it regardless of what obama does.

[GeorgeGist]

23. I'm more appalled at the arrogance of ...

" ...when I become president, ..."

[TreasonousBastard]

24. I don't think there's much doubt that Hillary's for the pipeline...

or at least not against it.

However, I'm guessing she's figured that nobody really cares all that much about it.

True, there is a loud contingent that hates it, but just how big is that contingent and how important is it to most of them, really?

[ljm2002]

25. I don't know if you support Hillary or not...

...but what you are saying, is that she made a purely political calculation when she crafted this response.

In fact it seems that is how she responds to most of the difficult questions so far.

People do notice. It is her biggest flaw, and it may cost her the nomination.

[TreasonousBastard]

27. Well, she is a politician...

and I honestly don't know if that's an entirely bad thing.

FWIW, I don't lean heavily any way at this point-- I'll take Hillary or Bernie well over anyone in the clown car. Who will I vote for in the NY primary? Plenty of time to make up my mind.

[ljm2002]

32. It's not entirely bad...

...to be a politician, true. Bernie also has his political side -- i.e., he also makes careful statements at times. But the majority of his views are direct and directly stated, and that is why he is drawing such enthusiasm IMO.

I, too, will take Hillary or Bernie or O'Malley for that matter, over anyone in the clown car!

[MineralMan]

36. I think you're probably right.

The pipeline is a lose/lose proposition, really. The oil's going to move, so it's a tossup between the pipeline or more oil trains travelling along the Mississippi. There isn't a good choice, really. The oil will move.

And, as you say, not enough people have strong opinions about it for it to matter all that much in the nomination or general election process. So, she's not saying, and may not even know which of the options would be better.

I can tell you this, though: The Twin Cities of MN, a well-known Democratic stronghold, is really, really concerned about the train transportation issue. We have a huge rail yard in St. Paul that is full of oil cars every day. Oil carrying unit trains, each hauling over a million gallons of crude, travel right through the heart of the Twin Cities and through suburbs around here. People are not in love with that, given the wrecks that have already happened.

We also have plenty of pipelines here. People don't worry as much about them. Then, moving down the Mississippi to the Gulf, there are other major cities, also mostly Democratic in nature. They don't like the trains, either. They're dangerous, and potentially threaten a major spill into the river or disastrous fires. The pipeline goes through rural areas, not major cities. It seems less dangerous to people here. Both have potential for environmental damage, of course, but only one can cause a disaster in the heart of a city or spill into the Mississippi.

So, it's no wonder that politicians facing elections are torn on this issue. It's a difficult one. The Midwest matters.

[TreasonousBastard]

37. Rationally, anything to reduce railcars is a better idea...

Pipelines are generally more efficient and have a better safety record. And they don't generally follow rivers.

Locally, Hillary could likely score points being for more pipelines, but it's never local any more.

[MineralMan]

38. You were correct, though, in seeing that it is not a

game-changing thing for this election. She doesn't need to take a firm position on this, politically. By not doing so, she might alienate a very few voters, percentage-wise. If she chooses a position, she's likely to alienate more. Politics. This is just one more pipeline in a country that is chock full of pipelines.

The real issue is our reliance on petroleum, and that's not something that's going to change for some long time. The oil will continue to move, regardless of the method. It just will.

[yallerdawg]

47. So, Keystone XL pipeline. Simple. Why wait for the facts?

From Wiki:

With many of their lines being underused, railroads find transporting crude oil an attractive source of revenue. With enough new tank cars they could carry all the new oil being produced in North America, albeit at higher prices than pipelines. In the short term, the use of rail will probably continue to grow as producers try to bypass short-term pipeline bottlenecks to take advantage of higher prices in areas with refineries capable of handling heavier crudes. In the long term the growth in rail transport will largely depend on the continued pipeline bottlenecks due to increased production in North America and regulatory delays for new pipelines. At present rail moves over 90,000 bbl/d (14,000 m3/d) of crude oil, and with continued growth in oil production and building of new terminals, rail movements will probably continue to grow into the foreseeable future.[67]

By 2013, exports of oil from Canada to the US by rail had increased 9-fold in less than two years, from 16,000 bbl/d (2,500 m3/d) in early 2012 to 146,000 bbl/d (23,200 m3/d) in late 2013, mainly because new export pipelines had been held up by regulatory delays. As a result, Canadian farmers suffered an acute shortage of rail capacity to export their grains because so much of Canada's rail capacity was tied up by oil products. The safety of rail transport of oil was being called into question after several derailments, especially after a train with 74 tank cars of oil derailed and caught fire in Lac Megantic, Quebec.[74]

[MineralMan]

48. Nothing is simple, is it, except for

people who do not investigate thoroughly.

[KoKo]

49. It would be helpful if she had stated the Keystone Pipeline issue vs Rail Transport

as well as you have stated here in your post. I think people would understand that she is weighing her decision based on concerns of people who live along the rail transportation routes as well as those who would suffer damage from Keystone going through their rural areas. Also, it would show that she has really done extensive research into both the positives and negatives of Keystone and has honestly not yet made up her mind.

Instead, she has a habit of deferring the tough questions which makes her seem either uninformed or that her advisers have told her to not be specific on any issues that could later be held against her.

[MineralMan]

50. Well, most people are simply opposed to the Keystone Pipeline

without knowing much about it, really. I've been posting on DU about the oil train issue and its dangers for quite some time. The information is out there and readily accessible. Many Keystone opponents don't even know that there is already a pipeline with that name in place and operating.

A lot of the opposition has nothing to do with any risk of such a pipeline, although contamination from spills is often mentioned in passing. The opposition is really about the oil itself. It's about the need for petroleum and how that should be reduced. While I agree with that, the fact is that it will not be reduced any time soon. We still run on oil around the world, and that's likely to be the case for decades.

That said, the oil will move from where it is found to where the refineries and shipping points are. It will move by rail if the safer pipeline option is not available. It is moving by rail, and in almost unimaginably large quantities. Every unit train is a potential disaster. Every unit train carries over a million gallons of volatile, flammable oil. Each time there is a train accident with one of these trains, the potential for fire and environmental damage exists.

Hillary Clinton may know about the tradeoff involved with oil transportation, but explaining that will not satisfy the opponents and nobody will listen to it anyhow. As I drive around the Twin Cities, I see those unit trains with a million gallons of oil passing through my area. In one spot, they cross a very busy freeway on an ancient rail overpass, rusty and creaking. It's in the middle of a heavily populated residential suburb. I shudder each time I see one of those trains on that crossing. The potential for disaster is high.

So, suppose Clinton and the others know what the tradeoffs are. They're not dealing with that, really. They're dealing with the politics of the thing. As someone pointed out, there aren't enough opponents of Keystone to really matter in the upcoming election, so this issue gets short shrift by the candidates. They know that their explanations won't matter and that the opponents aren't really thinking about the pipeline vs. rail transportation issue and comparing the risks. The opponents want NO OIL to be transported at all. They want to power the world with solar and wind.

So do I, but that's not on the immediate horizon. Not even close. The oil will move. The oil must move. How it moves is the only question, really. NO OIL is not an option.

[daleanime]

26. Because I have no opinion of my own?

Telling voters you'll let them know your opinion after you're president is like telling some one shopping for a car that their can find out about the engine after they buy it.

[Cheese Sandwich]

28. Settle down with the opinions peasants, we got your pipelines under control

Just kidding

[daleanime]

34. I would kind of like to see her use that answer....

for all questions directed to her.

"I'll let you know when I'm president."

[winter is coming]

51. Hope Obama gets a new private number after leaving office.

Otherwise, he can expect a lot of 3am phone calls.

[George II]

29. I saw the excerpt yesterday, and good to see the entire video today..

...even from the short excerpt being bandied about, I thought she answered it the best way she could.

This is an issue that is still unresolved, but President Obama has already vetoed the legislation and the Senate has been unable to override his veto.

For now, it's a moot point. I think some are looking to this as a "gotcha" quote, but it's going to fail miserably.

[winter is coming]

31. The President doesn't veto many bills.

It's highly likely the proponents will try again, which makes it perfectly reasonable to want to know where the Presidential candidates stand on the issue. Dodging the question was a bad move. Dodging it this clumsily was a worse one.

[Snotcicles]

35. She may have to decide on keystone, That is why the question was asked.

To evade answering that question until she is elected is playing us all for fools.

[George II]

42. "I'm not going to second guess President Obama. . ."

That's a VERY definitive response, why can't people recognize that?

[sufrommich]

43. Because some are frantically trying to create

a rift between our popular president and our democratic frontrunner.It's especially important to those supporting the only person running in the democratic primary who actually called for President Obama to be primaried in 2012.

[karynnj]

52. it is not definitive at all as Obama has yet to take a position

As she has agreed on some things and disagreed on others this is simply refusing to go on record.

[BooScout]

53. K&R