There has been several incidences with the rail transportation and on rails near cities and homes. It is a big danger.

A fossil fuel free world is where we need to be. Ending fossil fuels should of begun 20 years ago. The technology is already here and it can be affordable. Fossil fuels are antiquated.

Every spill, every leak, every explosion, every water table destroyed, will provoke many bitter "Thank You, Obama!" responses. That pipeline will be an albatross around the necks of all future Democratic candidates.

The upside for Obama, if he approves it, will be long term gratitude from Big Energy, and all the many lucrative ways that can be conveyed to him.

Have no credibility on maintenance..safety..management/leadership skills..
And why would they? Puppets..Retiring in gated community's..ignoring messes
they've created.

....essentially moot.

Another faux issue in the dumpster.

Even if it's friendly inquiry or a statement of fact, these folks don't want to hear or see anything but the suns rise, straight out of her butt, with no interruptions for the facts that it don't come out of there.

It could be seen both as a test for what she would do if she was president now and the reality is that an Obama no could be reversed by the new President. It is harder to reverse a yes.

Here, you have an issue that HRC has studied well from her days as SoS. Note she had no problem telling Atlantic magazine that she would have done more in Syria. That makes her reluctance here seem to be based more on this issue being contentious. A yes could hurt in the primaries and a no might hurt in the general.

Think back to any prior election, the question what would you personally do on anything is very common as a question.

We already know from the state department report what the Obama administration thinks about the merits of this project. It's funny watch the Democratic Party manage all the ways they fuck their supporters. They've strung this out long enough; Obama is not on the ballot so he no longer has to pretend to care about climate change.

and congress could not override the veto, so the result is not as much of a slam dunk as you suggest.
I am not saying he won't, I am saying that it is really a wild card.

The majority of Americans want the pipeline approved, however, that does not mean the president will, and there have been issues where he has made his decision independent of the polls.

"...Republican Senator John Hoeven said a presidential decision could come soon.

"Sources tell me that after almost seven years, President Obama is going to turn down the Keystone Pipeline project," he said Tuesday on the Senate floor."

http://news.yahoo.com/keystone-pipelines-fate-decided-during-obamas-term-011753634.html

If Obama approves the pipeline, it will be very difficult to undo no matter who is President, however, if the President does NOT approve the pipeline, which is a real possibility, the next President will definitely have to deal with this issue again, because it is sure to be brought up again.

I will be curious if you will acknowledge you were wrong if the President rejects the pipeline.

What people should do in the meantime is contact their representatives in Congress, and the President, and let their feelings be known.

does that mean that Hillary can finally answer the question on her views about it, or does it release her from the question?
If the latter, why?

to do, few others have that ability and she said she would release her position afterwards. But, you already know that.

pull your jockies out from up there and take a breath man. If she doesn't want to answer that's cool, that's an answer on its own, whatever Obama does.

President can do to undo it. However, if President Obama rejects the pipeline, which is a very real possibility, contrary to the leaps many on DU are making, the next President definitely will determine its fate, and Hillary will answer after the President has decided. Because she was SOS under this administration she is correctly not voicing her opinion before the President's decision I believe. I am well aware others on DU disagree with that view.

Consider this:

"Republican Senator John Hoeven said a presidential decision could come soon.

"Sources tell me that after almost seven years, President Obama is going to turn down the Keystone Pipeline project," he said Tuesday on the Senate floor."

http://news.yahoo.com/keystone-pipelines-fate-decided-during-obamas-term-011753634.html

In the fullness of time we will know

a decent strategic move but it better be quashed.

the veto always exists.

exist. The aquifer will be there after Jan. 2017. And so will the tarsands oil. Look how long it took them to get a permit to drill in the Artic.

I want Hillary to answer the question.

back up. I think there is a good chance that his successor will have to deal with this, too. If he approves it, though, it will be impossible to stop, once it gets rolling.