Hillary Clinton - just blowing smoke ...

Boxer and Kerry said no; Clinton (and Obama too) said yes ... subsidizing Big Coal is just NOT the way to go ... and that goes for "clean coal" too ... we need to stop subsidizing industries that pollute even when the vague and distant promise of clean burning fossil fuels is dangled like carrots (if carrots are indeed dangled) ... even the coal industry itself eventually shot down Senator Tester's bill ... there was no way they were going to live up to the standards it set ... it would have been a huge investment in smoke and mirrors ... the first article below gives some background.

The second article is even uglier in what it discloses. Stomping her charred and sooty big feet all over the environmental movement, Senator Clinton sided with a mega-company in NY and gave them her support to burn thousands of tons of tires to produce energy for a two week "test period". it's like she was granting them a timeout from the sanity of anti-pollution laws. the result was thousand of pounds of toxins being spewed into the atmosphere.

When real environmental issues are on the line, when it comes down to crunch time, when Senator Clinton had to stand and be counted, she voted with corporate America and against clean air. Yup, on the environment, Senator Clinton is just blowing smoke.

here's the first article:



and here's a link to the second article on Hillary's support for spewing fumes from burnt tires into the atmosphere:

We could not breathe at times without being sick. What is she thinking?

Then Florida put tires in the ocean...guess what? Now it is killing the ocean life.

Yoo hoo NY and Hillary ....been there done that.

:sarcasm:

and the flame war begins....

PAST TENSE. :eyes:

Have any of you smelled tires burning? We did for months here. Permission of the county. They burned them on purpose in case they might catch on fire or something. :shrug:

We were gasping for breath for ages, and we were miles away from the burn. Miles away.

Why is no one upset about this?

Why did she support this two years ago. I bet they smelled horrible then as well.

Wingers hate Hillary with a psychotic fervor. And they endlessly express this virulent hatred via their massive noise machine.

Some weak-minded liberals unconsciously adopt these attitudes and come to hate their own leaders. In so doing, they greatly assist the Republicans (for whom burning tires is a sacrament).

The cure is to cut yourself off entirely from that pernicious media noise. Stop trying to filter out the wheat from the chaff in the American news. It's like listening to enemy propaganda--and you can't filter the good from the bad.

I suggest that liberals engage in a virtual fast from the U.S. media news. It hurts you far more than you could possibly believe, as evidenced by how much better you'll feel if you avoid it.

Your IQ will go up. Your digestion will improve. You'll forget about Paris Hilton for long periods of time. And hopefully, you'll lose the urge to publicly attack your own leaders--which is not as brilliant a strategy as you seem to think.

for President, and one of 100 senators in the Senate, She not a bad senator as senators go, but I don't agree with her pro-American empire views and votes, and I don't agree with her often pro corporates stances.

I get my opinion of her based on speeches she has given and votes she has cast.

The rightwing would prefer Hillary win the nomination to any other candidate the Dems have. I wouldn't prefer that, myself.

I believe if you support Clinton for the nomination that you are playing into the enemies hands. And that seems a little weak minded to me. That doesn't seem smart and analytical at all.

you see, complaining about the MSM or complaining about right-wing republican propaganda is a really, really good argument. it's incredible how much bullshit is peddled on the airwaves, in the press and on the internet.

but the little problem you have with your argument is that what I posted was the truth ...

if you blindly follow corporate candidates, you'll do nothing but reinforce the status quo. where are your arguments that Hillary's support for the Coal Bill was a good idea. i didn't hear you make that case. where are your arguments that burning tires in this age of global warming is anything but an insane giveaway to a corporate friend? i didn't hear you make that case either.

if the best you can do in support of your candidate is to tell us to ignore her all-too-real record, you might want to let others make her case.

oh, and btw, what were the sources for the articles I linked to in my post?

one was The American Prospect ... here's a little about them:


and the other, was Vermont Pirg (hardly a bastion or right-wing thought):

American Prospect and VPirg are notorious right wing noise machines.


You must be an intern. DLC or HRC?

... is not necessarily my friend. You are the one who is logic-impaired.

All they had to do was talk to Florida...they tried this crap here years and years ago. It is dangerous and unbearable.

http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2006/11/15/ip-tire-burn-stopped-vt-and-ny-breathe-easier/

"After three years of public opposition, International Paper decided to abandon its efforts to burn tire derived fuel at its plant in Ticonderoga, New York. Huzzah! For the past two weeks, IP had been botching a test burn of the tires, hitting their maximum pollution levels burning only a fraction of the total amount of tires they wanted to. “I think that clearly the results demonstrated that there was a lot more pollution coming from the burning of tires than IP anticipated,” said Paul Burns, executive director of Vermont Public Interest Research Group. “That reality, combined with the growing public pressure, convinced company officials that they could not move forward. And that’s good news for everybody downwind.” Here at Middlebury College, we called off a demonstration planned for today and celebrated instead. Still, as we put away the champagne bottles, lingering questions remain: How did IP get away with conducting a test burn of tires in the first place? What are the longterm effects of the pollutants they already released into the air? and, How can we begin to reclaim control of our communities from multi-billion dollar corporations who threaten our health and environment?"

..."The Vermont Congressional delegation published this statement when the test burn was called off, “IP’s decision to abandon its test burn of tires is positive news, but we believe Vermonters should not have been subjected to these emissions in the first place,” the statement said. “We remain extremely concerned that the available data suggest that pollution levels from the weeklong burn approached the permitted limit and exceeded IP’s expected levels.” That’s politico speak for, “Wow. That was a sh*! load of pollution!” One of the reasons IP was able to get away with this is because of the complicated, inefficient, and antiquated “clean air” regulations of the EPA. As climate activists continue to push for carbon dioxide to be regulated as a pollutant, we should also focus on the regulation of toxics and other pollutants. Right now, as the law stands, its pollute first, ask questions later. The burden of proving a pollutant safe should be on multi-billion dollar companies like IP, not on citizens and students."

..." I have only been on this land for a few years, but I have spent my entire life in New England. The rolling hills, maple trees, dairy farms, and white church steeples are all parts of my vocabulary of home. After Winona’s talk, I spoke with a woman who was worried about the effect IP’s tire burn may have had on her vegetable garden. She believed that some of the pollutants, such as the dioxins, may be able to penetrate all the way down to her vegetables’ roots. We are very lucky in Vermont to have a relatively pristine environment to live in, but people here are beginning to question that stability. We loose something important when we are forced to doubt the quality of our soil, our air, and our own ability to live out our life in a place.

On their editorial page, the Burlington Free Press wrote today, “The experiment failed. International Paper was wise to stop the burn immediately and now needs to focus on repairing damaged relations with its neighbors across the lake.” That is for sure, but we students and Vermonters need to reach across the lake as well. In many ways, we are in a similar position to the people in Ticonderoga, New York, many of whom work at the IP mill. They also breathe polluted air when the wind shifts their way, they to have lost control of their community to IP."

They are usually in piles and open fields. You should just try stopping them from burning.

This is ridiculous.

...and it smells so...


As for Obama and coal to liquid technology and coal emissions:

"Today's incorrect story in CongressDaily 'Senate Debate Is Likely To Test Party, Regional Priorities,' misstates Senator Obama's position on the development of coal-to-liquid fuels. Senator Obama recognizes that global warming is one of the most significant problems that we face. He supports an 80% reduction in carbon emissions from all sources by 2050 and a 10% reduction in the carbon emissions of transportation fuels by 2020. Senator Obama supports research into all technologies to help solve our climate change and energy dependence problems, including shifting our energy use to renewable fuels and investing in technology that could make coal a clean burning source of energy. However, unless and until this technology is perfected, Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20% less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels. If an amendment is offered on the Senate floor that would provide incentives for - or mandate the use of - coal-to-liquid fuels without these environmental safeguards, Senator Obama will oppose the amendment."

http://www.heatison.org/index.php/content/blog_entry/obama_addresses_issue_of_li quid_coal/

This is consistent with what he's been saying for months: Reuters, May 24, 2007: "But Obama only supports coal-derived fuels that emit less carbon than gasoline, and wants to reduce carbon content in transport fuel by 10 percent by 2020, his spokesman said. Obama also is a sponsor of separate legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions to one-third of 2000 levels by 2050." Los Angeles Times, May 10, 2007: "Obama, who is sponsoring separate legislation to cap carbon dioxide emissions, said his support for coal fuel depended on finding a way to remove the greenhouse gases emitted in production. 'If it is used simply to compound the problem of greenhouse gases, then it's not going to be a credible strategy,' he said."

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/6/12/224210/445

for not taking the environment seriously enough. Never thought we would see this.

From the 2nd article in the OP

"Just last week, Governor Jim Douglas wrote to Clinton to chastise her for downplaying Vermonters' health concerns. Douglas noted that IP hasn't yet submitted a completed application to the DEC. Therefore, he said, "political leaders should not jump to conclusion" that the burn can be done within the plant's existing air-quality parameters."

"Neither has received major financial backing from the coal industry. <skip>

she's compiled a generally pro-environment record"

But what the heck, there's a two year old vote we can use to drag our gal through the mud.

"President Thompson" have a nice ring for you?.

let's see what you came up with ... first, you pointed out the line that I excerpted from the article that pointed out neither had received major financial backing from the coal industry. And your point is that I suggested she had? Did I say that? I don't think so ...

I also chose to include the line about a "generally pro-environment record". I assume you're not objecting to the fact that I included the line. But gosh, could it be you who took the line out of context? Is it possible that I posted the truth and you omitted a very important detail? ... well, let's just take another look at that line you highlighted.



you see, when you cherry pick the information, which I did NOT and you did, you distort what the author actually wrote. DU rules prohibit a more extensive explanation than that.

and your point about it being a two year old vote is, to say the least, curious. the vote on the Tester amendment referenced in the article was taken last week. is that recent enough for you? and what's your point anyway? are you actually suggesting that when someone is running for president we should only focus on their voting record within the last two years? that's a most curious way of burying the ugly history. no wonder you're supporting Hillary.

Hadn't received major financial backing from the coal industry and has a generally pro-environment record.

But you have two votes to rail about.

The RNC can rest easy, their work is being done for them, even if it is unwittingly.

A lot of environmentalists voted for it. The article is a hatchet job.

There is no excuse for it. It causes physical suffering and environmental damage, and they knew it did.

We should ALWAYS trust Senator Clinton's judgment...and we should trust ourselves for trusting in her....

*pats self on back*