, ,

To me, this is a total oxymoron.

In June 2015, Clinton’s campaign announced their new consultant…  TransCanada’s former lobbyist Jeff Berman.  In the period ending at that time, Hillary also had large sums of bundled contributions coming from associates from the fossil fuel industry: http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/827/201507159000221827/201507159000221827.pdf

There has been much debate about Sanders “lying” regarding the funds going to Clinton from the fossil fuel industry.  But is he lying?  This link, which appears now to have crashed due to excessive traffic, gives a good account of the millions going to Hillary from the Fossil Fuel industry: http://fair.org/home/did-sanders-lie-about-clintons-oil-money-npr-factchecker-cant-be-bothered-to-check/   But a Greenpeace link can give you a good summary as well: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/

 Nicholas Kamm AFP Getty Images

Nicholas Kamm | AFP | Getty Images

And Clinton says, “Anybody who knows me, who thinks they can influence me, name anything they’ve influenced me on. Just name one thing.”

How about two?

I think pipelines in general and Keystone in particular were a big factor turning my opinion on Hillary.  She took WAY TOO LONG to take a stance against the Keystone XL pipeline (KXL).  Based on Bill McKibben’s article in Rolling Stone (7/19/12) http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719, it should have been obvious years ago that, not only do we need to leave most of the remaining fossil fuels in the ground, but we also should cease and desist with all exploratory ventures to find more!  If we took half the money we’re currently spending to subsidize this work, and instead spent it on supporting renewables, we’d be fossil fuel free in no time.  Certainly by 2030 which many see as a looming deadline.  Not to mention the funding we could also free up for public health initiatives like curing cancer or public education to train the next generation of innovators.

Yet Clinton continues to support fracking, even on a global scale, though it is now being exposed as an even bigger threat to climate than ever imagined.  http://www.thenation.com/article/global-warming-terrifying-new-chemistry/


Josh Lopez photo from 350.org

 Side note: Bill McKibben also discusses his fall into activism in his 2013 book Oil and Honey: The Education of an Unlikely Activist.  This is an interesting read, especially its look behind the curtain on the 350.org movement and the workings of our government.  Oh, and there are bees! 🙂

As both O’Malley and Sanders have noted (this quote is from O’Malley), “On issue after issue–marriage equality, drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants, children fleeing violence in Central America, the Syrian refugee crisis, and now the Keystone Pipeline, Secretary Clinton has followed – not forged – public opinion.”  http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-finally-comes-out-against-keystone-pipeline

We need a leader, not a follower.  Especially when we have no idea whether she WILL follow our lead once elected.  I’m thinking she might just keep following the money.  I’m suspicious that she will continue to be influenced by those who paid her entry fee… and it by-and-large ain’t us.

Hillary has too many ties to the fossil fuel industry.  In addition to those mentioned in links provided above and the tie to TransCanada I noted at the onset of this piece, her good friend Paul Elliott was TransCanada’s Director of Government Relations in Washington, D.C. while she was Secretary of State.  What was his job just before taking on this latest venture?  He was National Deputy Director & Chief of Staff for the Hillary Clinton for President campaign.  https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-elliott-21755959  With Hillary working as Secretary of State and involved with the approval of KXL, there was an obvious potential for conflict of interest.  http://greenliving.about.com/od/scienceandtechnology/a/Hydraulic-Fracturing-Fracking.htm

Perhaps I should leave it to Susan Sarandon who explains it better than me in the first five & 1/2 minutes of this interview.  “If you think that it’s pragmatic to shore up the status quo right now, then you’re our of touch with the status quo.  The status quo is not working.” http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/truthdigger_of_the_week_susan_sarandon_defender_of_those_wholl_vote_for_ber

You can argue that it’s impractical to not support Hillary if she’s the nominee.   And I hear you.  But you’re naive if you think you can guilt people into voting for Hillary when they are convinced she is not going to have their back on the issues; when they are convinced she is on the wrong side of history.  This is why many are saying, “Anyone but Hillary.”  They are not pleased with her record.  And I am convinced Bernie is the only one who can bring out the voters we need to defeat Republicans at the polls in November, no matter who they nominate. Our ONLY chance to beat Republicans.  Are you hearing me?  

I simply have no faith that Hillary will represent We the People with regard to Climate Change (and a whole host of other issues as well).  She certainly won’t be changing her ways soon enough to save this planet from the devastating effects of Climate Change, which is rapidly changing the world as we know it.  Especially if we have to continue dragging her forward to finally catch up to the rest of us.