2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWAPO: League of Conservation Voters to Endorse Hillary Clinton
League of Conservation Voters to Endorse Hillary ClintonThe League of Conservation Voters Action Fund on Monday intends to endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first time in three decades it has endorsed a presidential candidate before a single primary vote has been cast.
The decision to back Clinton over two Democratic rivals with equally strong, if not stronger, liberal environmental records shows the extent to which some environmentalists are concerned the Obama administrations policies could be rolled back under a Republican president. The groups president, Gene Karpinski, said it needs to activate volunteers and donors early to make sure Clinton is strongly positioned for the general election.
The LCV Action Fund picked Clinton over Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and former Maryland governor Martin OMalley because the stakes are so high and Clinton has proved shes an effective leader who can stand up to the big polluters and push forward an aggressive plan to tackle climate change, Karpinski said.
More at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/league-of-conservation-voters-action-fund-to-endorse-clinton/2015/11/08/4020cc9c-862d-11e5-be39-0034bb576eee_story.html
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)arikara
(5,562 posts)and chuckled to myself. Then I realized it was Conservation. Not so funny any more, especially after just reading this one.
How Hillary Clintons State Department Sold Fracking to the World
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251783865
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)EOM
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Here comes the bus!
iandhr
(6,852 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)askew
(1,464 posts)They'd be happy if she goes through the whole primary process without giving us concrete policy platforms on anything. She is running a pretty vapid campaign and hope voters are too stupid to notice.
LuvLoogie
(6,913 posts)It's not Obamacare you know. You are free to vote for whom you want.
SCantiGOP
(13,864 posts)Read the second sentence of your post and see if that statement makes any sense.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)askew
(1,464 posts)She hasn't even published a full climate change platform yet. O'Malley has the best climate change platform and he has done more for environmental concerns than Hillary or Sanders.
How are they going to hold Hillary accountable, when they endorse her before she even lays out her environmental agenda. Just shameful. This makes it all about cronyism and not about the cause they are supposed to care about.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)askew
(1,464 posts)She's flip-flopped on her Senate record and her past platforms on issue after issue. You can't take anything she said in the past as something she believes now.
Also, her campaign platform from 2008 is significantly weaker than both Sanders and O'Malley.
The only reason for this endorsement is cronyism.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)In any case they will have good company under the bus.
ismnotwasm
(41,965 posts)Cause -- Damn.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Nothing wrong with that, but it;s not just some politically neutral organization
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)The WP article does a pretty good job of listing the reasons they *shouldn't* have endorsed her, especially considering, like you said, Sanders and O'Malley have much better environmental proposals than she does. This is an extremely disappointing endorsement for many reasons.
askew
(1,464 posts)It undermines their cause and would make me take them less seriously if I was a donor to that group. Hillary has never been great on environmental issues (much like Bill) and there was zero harm in waiting until she put out a full environmental platform. The only reason to do it is to try to end the primary process before voting begins.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 10, 2015, 08:23 AM - Edit history (1)
I could easily see, and would support, LCV endorsement in the GE (assuming that she is the Dem nominee), since ALL Dem nominees outshine all Republican nominees on environmental and conservation issues; but endorsement in the primary election is puzzling and premature, at best - and, honestly, also unearned - especially given the fact that O'Malley and Sanders have better voting records and/or stronger plans than HRC.
Earlier Dem presidential candidates endorsed by LCV in earlier primaries, such as John Kerry and Al Gore, had several decades of strong commitment to environmental issues before announcing their candidacies for the presidency. HRC does not have that kind of record.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)riversedge
(70,077 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Cha
(296,812 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)It's another cynical endorsement by Hillary's team. I find it a bit funny because it just isn't working. No one is buying this BS outside her supporters.
O'Malley has the best record of environmental accomplishments of all the candidates and the best climate change platform.
It weakens their leverage if they endorse the candidate with the weakest environmental record who can't even be bothered to put out a full climate change platform.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I also suspect Clinton has made some serious commitments.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Nothing wrong with that, but this is more a political endorsement
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Makes me sad for our chances in stemming catastrophic climate change.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Carol Browner (See my post below)
oasis
(49,326 posts)It will eliminate a ton of red tape when it comes to policy proposals.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But it should be clarified that it's a friend and political ally of Clinton, not just some environmental organization without a dog in the hunt.
ismnotwasm
(41,965 posts)Awesome!
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
msrizzo
(796 posts)But I have to push back on claims that the Clinton administration didn't have a good environmental record. And hello, Al Gore?
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/17/2314341/epa-building-renamed-after-bill-clinton-to-recognize-his-administrations-environmental-record/
Not saying that what Bill did is a reason to endorse Hillary, but the conventional wisdom among some folks today that Bill Clinton was the worst president in the history of the world is just wrong.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)She listens & she hears the concerns and engaged them in contributing to a solution.
She doesn't have to shout her message nor run a smear campaign to have a place in this race.
She hears the concerns & with her brilliant knowlege of policy & diplomacy, will see that their concerns will not be forgotten.
She engages those concerned about a critical issue, in also finding a solution.
This is why she has the endorsements she does.
She's not shouting her message in anyones face.
That is a great leader
HRC 2016
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)League of Conservative Voters
onecaliberal
(32,777 posts)Her corporate donars. They must think we are complete idiots.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)hay rick
(7,587 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Carol Browner - Chair of League ..... A good environmentalist, but not exactly unbiased. Clinton Crony. Member of Clinton and Obama administrations....Center for American Progress
Obama's director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2011. Browner previously served as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the Clinton administration from 1993 to 2001.
In the 2008 presidential election, she was a strong supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic nomination.[8] After Clinton lost her bid, Browner campaigned for Barack Obama in several battleground states and in League of Conservation Voters events.[8]
After the Clinton administration, Browner became a founding member of the Albright Group, a "global strategy group" headed by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
But...
Until summer 2008 she was a member of Socialist International's Commission for a Sustainable World Society,[61][62][63] although the commission's web site still had her listed as a member in January 2009.
askew
(1,464 posts)That's what I thought.
oasis
(49,326 posts)Cha
(296,812 posts)http://www.lcv.org/about/mission/
Good job, msrizzo!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Cha
(296,812 posts)riversedge
(70,077 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)This must be how union members feel when leadership makes a decision without input from members.
Cha
(296,812 posts)YES!!
cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)a recipient of funds from the Clinton Foundation? Just wondering? If so, why would they endorse Bernie if it might be killing the golden goose?
msrizzo
(796 posts)I don't know who they fund off the top of my head so I can't help you.
cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)that showed a list of some of the organizations and it wasn't there, but then someone downthread said something about them so I thought probably but couldn't find where they got the list from.
cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)msrizzo
(796 posts)I notice the thread says that it is just a "small list" of the organizations they fund.
cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)I wonder where they got the list, or is this something that the Clinton campaign put out and there isn't a link.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Cha
(296,812 posts)Hillary is going to win and they're need to get started on this yesterday.