Clinton: Does the wording of her position on Keystone leave open a future reversal of her position?

[Skwmom]

Last edited Wed Sep 23, 2015, 08:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Hillary Clinton says:

I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone pipeline as what I believe it is -- a distraction from important work we have to do on climate change," Clinton told a community forum in Des Moines, Iowa.

"And unfortunately from my perspective, one that interferes with our ability to move forward with all the other issues," she said. "Therefore I oppose it."

So when it isn't a distraction and doesn't interfere with the ability to move forward on other issues will she support it?

If I was one of the unions, Canada, or big money backing this, I don't think I would be too upset at her wording on how she now "opposes" Keystone.

Note: listening to the audio she actually said "important work we have to do to combat climate change."

Another thread refers to her statement as forceful opposition. Really?

As one astute poster summed it up below: She came out against backing Keystone at this TIME.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/22/politics/hillary-clinton-opposes-keystone-xl-pipeline/

[Bonobo]

1. Why did she use the word "distraction"? It's just weird and inappropriate. nt

[Hortensis]

9. Not to me. Weird has been too much passion invested in a pipe while

the planet burns. It's important to remember that deaths are already in the many millions and that much of the international unrest, mass migrations, etc., have climate change and disappearing fresh water as major factors. Such as the current migrations from the drying-up Middle East up into cooler and wetter Eurasia.

And it's all going to get much, much worse. Like abandonment of farm and cattle lands and potential migration of peoples in the U.S. from heating and drying up southern states to cooler and wetter areas to the north, with resultant economic devastation for the entire nation.

The good thing is that finally it looks like Big Energy is losing this one, a signal to everyone.

And, no, I have NEVER been for the pipeline. Let Canada build one there if it wants, and it doesn't.

[HereSince1628]

11. No it's purposeful. She objects to a distraction she does -not- object to the KXL.

If the distraction can be overcome, or made to go away, the reason for her opposition goes away.

[kenfrequed]

16. It opens the door

It basically means she will include approving Keystone for some other climate changed related concession. It also is a way to try to get it off her plate for the campaign.

[RiverLover]

2. Yes.

And its indicative of all that is wrong with her candidacy. She didn't come out against keystone, she came out against backing keystone at this time.

[Skwmom]

4. Exactly. n/t

[Duckhunter935]

12. I did not catch that

Just proves my suspicion that she will change her mind and "evolve" when the big money wants it.

[JDPriestly]

3. Absolutely Clintonesque.

Signals, I could be persuaded either way.

Not a matter of right snd wrong but of the highest priority, but of the highest bid.

Feel the Bern!

[TM99]

5. Yuppers, she gave herself an out

as always.

Gods, I am sick of the triangulating bullshit language of the neo-liberals.

[Dems to Win]

40. Hillary is very smart. She could give straight answers, if she wanted to.

It is annoying to me that I have to parse her statements. Always.

[TM99]

41. Once a lawyer,

always a lawyer.

Of course, she could be direct. She simply chooses not to be for effect.

[Cheese Sandwich]

6. Distraction from what? Combating climate change is largely the project of blocking pipelines.

That's what the fight is, to stop dirty fuel extraction, and limit it as much as possible.

Far from a distraction it's right at the center of the question. Are we going to start rejecting big new dirty fuel projects or not?

She's basically admitting she doesn't see it as a problem, but the protesting peons are so annoying that she will claim to oppose it just to shut them up.

[CharlotteVale]

7. Yep. What exactly is it a "distraction" FROM? That

doesnt even make sense. So that tells me she's the one trying to do the distracting.

[karynnj]

26. Maybe a distraction from HRC's past role on this OR a distraction to her run for the nomination. nt

[bigwillq]

8. Yes (nt)

[cali]

10. weasel words, and nothing but.

[disndat]

13. Weasel words and mealy-mouth

All of the above. H.C.'s modus operandi.

[Divernan]

14. Key phrase, "unfortunate from my perspective"

She gives herself multiple outs in this statement. In addition to those already discussed in this thread, here's another one. Why would she say it is unfortunate from her perspective?
A key descriptive adjective is the word "unfortunate". It's particularly unfortunate for Hillary in terms of the $$$$/fortune she could get from continuing her long-term support of Big Oil, Big Fracking and pipelines.

Never underestimate the ability of Bill & Hillary to parse the hell out of what the meaning of "is" is.

And a key qualifying phrase is, "from my perspective." Because her perspective has been, currently is and always will be to follow the money. With the Clintons, you gotta pay to play.

So when she is currently busy as a bee fundraising, it's damned unfortunate (applying the term "fortune" to the campaign $$$ she's raking in, that she has to temporarily oppose the pipeline, backers of which have mucho $$$$ to donate to her campaign. However, I'm sure there's been many a wink and a nod between Hillary's backroom fund raisers/PACs and Big Oil, Big Fracking and Big Keystone Pipeline.

[NorthCarolina]

15. Of course. The word "distraction".

It's not an "issue", rather it's a "distraction". Typical, always leaving room for plausible deniability later on.

Here's my guess as to the "true" meaning of her statement.


I didn't say at the time that I was against plans to build the pipeline, what I said was that it was a "distraction" that was preventing us from discussing the issues that truly affect climate change. So at that point in the campaign, it really WAS a distraction because that's all anyone was talking about, and that's what I was against; the "distraction" that it was proving to be.

[restorefreedom]

17. quintessential clinton-speak

this statement is a perfectly crafted non answer....she opposes it only while it distracts and thwarts climate change efforts?

so this means that when it is less of a distraction and the canadians offer a way to make the pipeline one thousandth of one percent less environmentally damaging, she will evolve and support it.

no pipeline, no doublespeak.

bernie 2016

[FSogol]

18. Translation: Were her fingers crossed?

[JoePhilly]

19. Ah ... the search for the secret code to Hillary's evil plan continues.

We've had 6+ years of this secret code treasure hunt every time Obama speaks.

Why not continue the tradition.

[jwirr]

35. She can if she wants but she and you should understand

that this is exactly why she has a trust problem. We are talking issues this election and at least three other candidates are clearly speaking about the issues.

If she wants to be trusted she will start clearly saying what she means without leaving wiggle room.

We did not catch on to what was going on during Bill Clinton's terms but we have seen what he really meant in the years since. We are no longer blind. We recognize false promises now.

[ljm2002]

20. Yes it does...

...because her statement avoids addressing the environmental impact of the Keystone XL project itself.

That was very odd phrasing to choose once she decided to take a position. It made me trust her less, not more.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. It depends on which way she evolves.

[Segami]

22. It all depends.....

[MisterP]

23. America's sick of these Rorschach-test statements by pols that everyone knows

are insincere and have no intention of upholding--we're inured to pretty phrases used to get into office and then afterwards, well, what are the canaille gonna do about it? NOT vote?

[hifiguy]

24. Of course.

She'd hedge a statement that the sun rises in the east.

[karynnj]

25. You might be on to something -- I had thought the response weird - almost forced and angry that

she had to say anything.

There are so many words - that once said - make changing impossible. Environmental catastrophe is one - immoral is another. This basically calls the ISSUE a distraction. What is says is polling shows that going otherwise is bad in the primary.

Note however that supporters of the pipeline ALWAYS quote the State Department study. That was her gift to them - a study where the charter going in was to assume that pipeline or not, the same amount of dirty oil is extracted. (An assumption that means you can't count anything related to either the dirty oil or its extraction. Yet, anyone who passed an entry level microeconomics course would dispute the assumption - if distributing by Keystone was cheaper (which is why they wanted to do it). Changing that price would change the extraction cost that would be economically feasible.

[Snotcicles]

31. No might, about it. nt

[arcane1]

28. She doesn't oppose because it's wrong, but because it's a "distraction"

Specifically, it's distracting from her coronation.

[HassleCat]

29. The union question

As you would expect, the unions representing people who will build, operate and maintain the pipeline support it. Railroad workers are not quite as pleased at the idea of a pipeline that will pretty much eliminate oil trains.

[jwirr]

37. And those Unions that build, operate and maintain are seldom

from the area that the pipeline is built in. They are not looking at it from an environmental point. About a third of the workers on the pipeline that goes past our area were from here. And once built they were laid off.

[Jester Messiah]

30. It's Hillary. A future reversal of her position is all but guaranteed.

♫ Any way the wind blows... ♫

[oasis]

32. I'll leave it to the voters to decide what she meant.

wake me after Super Tuesday.

[Scootaloo]

33. I've spent five-minutes reading those lines again

And I can't figure out what on earth she's trying to say before "therefore, I oppose it."

It's kind of a word salad there.

[Maedhros]

34. As with any politician, WHAT THEY DO is much more important than WHAT THEY SAY,

especially during a campaign. Obama's about-face on issues too numerous to mention should have burned this truth into our brains.

In Hillary's case, she can say all she wants about 'opposing' the Keystone XL pipeline, but her actions give us a much more accurate clue to how she would govern if elected President:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122147/hillary-clinton-has-hired-former-keystone-pipeline-lobbyist

Hillary Clinton has hired a former lobbyist for the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, further upsetting environmentalists who have long been wary of her commitment to fighting climate change.

BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith reported on Wednesday that the Clinton campaign has hired Jeffrey Berman as a campaign consultant. Berman, who began working for the campaign earlier this month, once lobbied on behalf of TransCanada, the company that hopes to build a pipeline carrying tar sands oil from Canada to the southern coast of the U.S.
. . .
"For us it’s a signal that she continues to be willing to work with oil and gas interests and take money from folks who are committed to have a pathway to fossil fuels," said Ben Schreiber, Friends of the Earth's climate and energy program director.

[Vattel]

36. I hope someone asks her for more details in a debate or in a news interview.

If she is cornered she will probably feel that she has to say that she thinks it is environmentally unsound and so should be opposed even if it is not a distraction. That might make it hard for her to come out in favor of it when she is president.

[JRLeft]

38. She's forever evolving, she'll fine her corporate voice after the election.

[Dems to Win]

39. It sounds like she doesn't understand why climate activists oppose Keystone

It's not that its a distraction from our efforts to build solar panels and wind turbines.

It's GAME OVER for the climate if all the tar sands are dug up and burned. That stuff must be left in the ground. That's what James Hansen says.

This statement doesn't really give me any confidence in her regarding climate change.

[Uncle Joe]

42. I agree

"And unfortunately from my perspective, one that interferes with our ability to move forward with all the other issues," she said. "Therefore I oppose it."

Those are weasel words.

Thanks for the thread, Skwmom.

[Motown_Johnny]

43. Yes.

She usually says things like "When I am President, I will... this that or the other thing".

On Keystone, she made no such statement.

She is positioning herself on all sides of this issue.

[jfern]

44. She triangulates so much, that it's hard to take anything she says seriously

[Skwmom]

45. Kind of reminds me of her position on new nuclear power plants. n/t