She's taking a lot of hits for refusing to take a clear 'Yes or no' position on Keystone today and I couldn't disagree more with this reaction.
Listen, not everything is a yes or no question with nothing in between as much as this might not satisfy dogmatists.
Ed was all over her again-while being all over Bernie Sanders for categorically saying no to Keystone.
There's this silly idea that she's refusing to take a position until she's President.
People accuse her of being 'haughty' and 'regal.' They say she's unwilling to tell us what she'll do during the campaign.
This is not what she's saying-the Hillary bashers are misconstruing this. This makes her sound like Mitt Romney in 2012 who wouldn't tell us what spending cuts he'd do until after he was elected.
Hillary is not doing this here.
"But in an email to me, climate activist Bill McKibben spelled out what’s wrong with this in process terms, too:"
"Saying ‘I’ll tell you my position if I’m elected president’ can’t be the real answer. I mean, in that case why bother with campaigns and so forth? And it’s not like this is a small issue: it generated more public comments than any infrastructure project in U.S. history, sent more people to jail than any issue in many years, and so forth."
"It really does seem wrong to duck it — especially since she was willing to say, publicly, that she was “inclined” to approve it before the stated department review even started."
"Clinton has reiterated again and again that she will take a position only after the administration does. On Monday, she said: “I’ve been very clear, I will not express an opinion until they have made a decision.”
"But what Clinton can’t avoid here is that climate advocates and environmentalists want to know her position on Keystone not just because they are naturally curious about her views on this project, but for a larger reason: they think it will indicate how strong her resolve is to stand up to fossil fuel projects and to combat climate change in a general sense."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/28/why-hillarys-dodging-on-keystone-is-a-letdown-to-the-left/
She's clearly saying that she's waiting not until she's President but until the current President makes his decision-she doesn't want to undercut him-how can you criticize her for that?
As for this indicating her position on climate change, I think this is falling into the litmus test trap. Basically the right answer for Ed and the other Hillary bashers is a categorical no on Keystone.
Yet there really are competing issues-there are reasons to support it and oppose it. Not every issue is black and white. I don't see this as outrageous as I haven't taken a categorical position on this or TPP.
But you can be strong on the environment and yet disagree on a particular project. How can people extrapolate and assume this starkly? Do you think Obama is strong on the environment? Yet he too hasn't made up his mind yet.
As for Bernie some of his positions and votes from the past are questionable as well.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/bernie-sanders-spotty-on-gun-control.html
Listen, not everything is a yes or no question with nothing in between as much as this might not satisfy dogmatists.
Ed was all over her again-while being all over Bernie Sanders for categorically saying no to Keystone.
There's this silly idea that she's refusing to take a position until she's President.
People accuse her of being 'haughty' and 'regal.' They say she's unwilling to tell us what she'll do during the campaign.
This is not what she's saying-the Hillary bashers are misconstruing this. This makes her sound like Mitt Romney in 2012 who wouldn't tell us what spending cuts he'd do until after he was elected.
Hillary is not doing this here.
"But in an email to me, climate activist Bill McKibben spelled out what’s wrong with this in process terms, too:"
"Saying ‘I’ll tell you my position if I’m elected president’ can’t be the real answer. I mean, in that case why bother with campaigns and so forth? And it’s not like this is a small issue: it generated more public comments than any infrastructure project in U.S. history, sent more people to jail than any issue in many years, and so forth."
"It really does seem wrong to duck it — especially since she was willing to say, publicly, that she was “inclined” to approve it before the stated department review even started."
"Clinton has reiterated again and again that she will take a position only after the administration does. On Monday, she said: “I’ve been very clear, I will not express an opinion until they have made a decision.”
"But what Clinton can’t avoid here is that climate advocates and environmentalists want to know her position on Keystone not just because they are naturally curious about her views on this project, but for a larger reason: they think it will indicate how strong her resolve is to stand up to fossil fuel projects and to combat climate change in a general sense."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/28/why-hillarys-dodging-on-keystone-is-a-letdown-to-the-left/
She's clearly saying that she's waiting not until she's President but until the current President makes his decision-she doesn't want to undercut him-how can you criticize her for that?
As for this indicating her position on climate change, I think this is falling into the litmus test trap. Basically the right answer for Ed and the other Hillary bashers is a categorical no on Keystone.
Yet there really are competing issues-there are reasons to support it and oppose it. Not every issue is black and white. I don't see this as outrageous as I haven't taken a categorical position on this or TPP.
But you can be strong on the environment and yet disagree on a particular project. How can people extrapolate and assume this starkly? Do you think Obama is strong on the environment? Yet he too hasn't made up his mind yet.
As for Bernie some of his positions and votes from the past are questionable as well.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/bernie-sanders-spotty-on-gun-control.html
No comments:
Post a Comment