http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddow-says-politico-is-effectively-the-romney-campaigns-campaign-newsletter

I guess the answer to my question is 'no, she did not answer the question'.

our party know NOW that we want candidates we can support, candidates who represent the values of the voters they are asking to support them.

Telling the party, as I've seen some do here 'I will vote for whoever you tell us to vote for' is, to be blunt, ASKING them not to consider the people AT ALL.

NOW is the time to tell them the exact opposite of that. 'We expect our party to provide us with candidates who will answer questions about policies frankly and openly. You cannot take our votes for granted, no matter what you are hearing from a few people claiming to represent all of us'.

The very idea of telling a political party you will vote for whoever they decide you should vote for is so defeatist it is incomprehensible to me.

. . . she needs to be challenged early and often to state her position on Keystone and explain her actions as SoS regarding the pipeline.

Seems to me it's easy to take a stand against something that is wrong. No matter WHO is supporting it.

Are you saying we should waver over this because Trumka got it wrong this time? Because here's what I think when somethink like this happens, you tell him how wrong he is and not to expect support from Democrats AND that his position on this if he continues to support it, will lose him credibility.

Why do people think that we should hesitate in our decisions because (fill in the blank for the latest 'favorite' politician or Union leader who is on the wrong side of an issue) supports or doesn't support it?

I've noticed this tactic a lot lately. 'Guess what, Elizabeth Warren said ... whatever'. Is that supposed to change people's opinions about something as important as this? Because it doesn't, it just means we need BETTER representatives.

And I do see how strongly you feel about this issue. However, I also understand the AFL-CIO's opinion that the pipeline should be able to go ahead conditional on very strict environmental safeguards. The oil will be transported one way or another, whether it's through the pipeline or by sea or by train. Perhaps it is better that it is transported in a way that we can ensure is safe.

rather than supporting a dangerous, already proven disastrous and NOT job creating venture for this planet simply to make more obscene amounts of money for the already obscenely wealthy corrupt, Oil Cartels that have caused so much harm already to this planet.

I dont' care what Trumka says, hopefully he will be enlightened as to what it is he is supporting, and if not, then nothing he has to say on the topic is worthy of anything other than 'he's wrong'.

We CANNOT ENSURE that it will be 'safe'.

Which is why there is so much opposition to it. It has NOT BEEN SAFE.

This is about one thing, period, money.

Trumka is wong so it's no good trying to use him to try to persuade people to even think about supporting this impending disaster.

across our nation (by whatever means) simply for the profit of a multinational company that refuses to build their poison refining plants in the country that is extracting the poison?

It won't even be used here.
Why must we risk our drinking water for the profit of billionaires? I say this toxic dredge does not have to be transported across the border and thousands of miles of our country. There is no upside for us.

There is no reason for the US to take the environmental risk when the oil is going to China.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/16/hillary-clinton-has-a-keystone-xl-catch-22/

She is taking a reasonable position at this point. Sean Sullivan's story is more evenhanded than Politico's cherry picking one. I thought Politico was usually viewed with more skepticism here?

There is no 'take' on a question like that, no Democrat should be supporting this pipeline and they should have zero problem saying so.

Why are you asking to be spoonfed the information?

The problem is that she actually DOES have a history on this.

I suspect that NOT taking an issue will not help her with people on the left for whom the environment is a big issue. The common wisdom (right or wrong) is that the study she initiated was designed to favor a yes answer --- and conveniently was to come out just before she left leaving the decision - and blame - to her successor. So far, Kerry and Obama have kicked the decision down the road - which could be consider a "temporary no" as it keeps them from moving forward.

The environment has in recent past elections not been a top voting issue. Gore and Kerry had excellent records on climate change and Kerry had an exceptional record on the environment overall, but that is not why either won the nomination. This is lucky, because the Clinton record - despite her words - has been rather mixed on the environment. (Bill's was actually awful in Arkansas and mediocre in the WH - Hillary is possibly better.)

Although the final environmental document for the pipeline was released after she left the State Dept, she was in charge there during much of its preparation. The document concluded that the pipeline would little or no impact on climate change.

I wouldn't want to comment on it either if I had hopes of getting Democrats to vote for me in a presidential primary.

She has the luxury of not being in office - thus not having to make a decision or to take a vote. Consider how the accountability of being in office has affected people in the past.

The problem is that this not an issue where the person has absolutely no record on the issue. It is pretty clear that the team she gave the study to - and even more the assumptions they were to include in the study - guaranteed a result that would say there was no climate change affect. This was because, it was ASSUMED that pipeline or not, the same amount of tar sands would be extracted. It's been decades since I had a microeconomics course, but this seems a completely ridiculous assumption. Why? There is a point given the total cost of getting the oil to where it is going becomes greater than the price you get. Above that point, it is uneconomic to extract more. The reason they want the pipeline is that it reduces that total cost. That would change the point where it becomes uneconomic to extract more.

At any rate, it was likely Clinton's desire that she push things back until she left - and hoped that the pipeline was then quickly approved - the earlier the better. Her hope would be that by 2016 the issue would not stick to her - just to Kerry and Obama (who are not running).

At this point, it is rather a mess. Obama did approve building the lower part - thus to some degree raising the bar for now rejecting the whole concept. Additionally, could it impact our relationship to Canada?

I hope that many postponements suggest that Kerry and/or Obama do not want to approve it. I would suspect that politically they worry more about a "no" impacting the many swing seats up this time. In the 2014 states, which state could be lost by a "yes" decision? I know that some might speak of demoralizing the base, but in many at risk states the Senator himself/herself has already called for it to be built. It is hard to see how anger on this issue at Obama from the left could change the overall dynamic. I really hope that Kerry especially sees this as a possible catastrophic environmental disaster and realizes he owes NO ONE his approval of this.

As to Clinton, I suspect she will wait to see how the politics play out. If she decides it is better to argue for it -- I assume she will try hard to avoid speaking of it until after the primaries.

I think she's a trojan horse candidate... she'll veer hard right if elected... like all corporatist dems do.

Hillary Clinton On Her Personal View On Keystone XL: "I Can't Respond" - WP

EDIT

For a number of reasons, there is virtually no upside for Clinton, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, to weigh in on a contentious debate that has divided Democrats -- at least until President Obama announces his administration's long-awaited decision on the matter. Even after Obama decides, Clinton will have to come to terms with the political benefits and drawbacks of picking a side. Regardless of which she picks, she would encounter both. We'll unpack all of these considerations in a moment. First, let's take a look at Clinton's words. In an interview with Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper, here's what she said when asked about Keystone XL:

(But) this particular decision is a very difficult one because there are so many factors at play. I can’t really comment at great length because I had responsibility for it and it’s been passed on and it wouldn’t be appropriate, but I hope that Canadians appreciate that the United States government – the Obama administration – is trying to get it right. And getting it right doesn’t mean you will agree or disagree with the decision, but that it will be one based on the best available evidence and all of the complex local, state, federal, interlocking laws and concerns.

When the paper followed up with a question about what Clinton personally believes, she said, "I can’t respond."

Indeed, it's understandable that Clinton's employment history might preclude her from weighing in. The State Department, which she headed from 2009-2013, is at the center of the Keystone debate. It completed a thorough environmental assessment and is considering millions of public comments on the matter. The Obama administration announced in April that its decision on Keystone XL would be pushed back once again-- seen by some as a move to punt a politically sensitive call beyond the 2014 midterm elections.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/16/hillary-clinton-has-a-keystone-xl-catch-22/

She is very pro-corporation. So she will be pro-Keystone, unless the Corporations involved don't donate enough to her.

Same with TPP. I would be willing to bet that she will support that if elected. She may say otherwise beforehand. Obama said many things before he was elected that turned out to not happen, like curtailing spying. Frankly I think it is just easier with Hillary since she has a track record.

Kinda like she did with the IWR vote.

"I can't respond"

Yep, sounds like a leader

Not sure why she should be expected to comment now. 1) Her comment could be used against Obama or cause problems for the current administration. 2) The situation could be completely different by the time she enters the race, if she enters.

I give her a lot of respect for not stepping on Obamas toes. He is the one in the hot seat with a difficult decision to make. People here, one side or the other, would be fuming if she put herself at odds with Obama. Others would be fuming if she backed whatever Obamas current position is. It is a no win. Always will be a no win for her in your eyes. That is very clear after the story you pushed here earlier.

People are acting as if they have never followed politics and this is something new.

By whitewashing the pipeline and determining that it would have no impact on global climate change, the State Department put him in a difficult position, environment v. jobs. I think Hillary stuck her finger in the wind, determined that she was going to be gone by the time the crap hit the fan and produced an environmental study that would put her on the right side of the people who might donate to her 2016 campaign or hire her as a lobbyist if he opted not to run.

If she runs in 2016 she'll run far away from the policies of the Obama administration. Her advisors believe Democrats have no choice other than to vote for her.

She can't say she's against it because it's part of the US energy roadmap. She can't say she's for it because liberals will complain about it for two years.

It's going to be built, she's going to support it closer to campaign time.