2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy did the League of Conservation Voters endorse Hillary over Bernie?
that's the real issue, not this logo nonsense.
Her lifetime score is 82% versus Bernie's 95% lifetime, and his track record is much longer.
Was someone paid off? Or is there another explanation for this?
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Lobbyists tend to side with people they know will be hospitable to their sales pitches. LCV figures Clinton is a better bet for getting what they want, since she is connected.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)ought to be just terrific for the environment. lets give her an endorsement
Hillary Clinton Attending Fundraiser With Pro-Keystone XL Lobbyist
Clinton recently stated opposition to the pipeline
Jan 12, 2016
http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-clinton-attending-fundraiser-with-pro-keystone-xl-lobbyist/
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)enough
(13,259 posts)gyroscope
(1,443 posts)given how much she is in bed with the fossil fuel industry.
Win for Hillary, loss for the environment. Does that make sense to anyone.
still_one
(92,187 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)angrychair
(8,698 posts)Doesn't change the point. His voting record on things that matter most to LCV is longer and he has a higher eating from them. He opposed KXL from the beginning. He opposed giving federal land for more fracking.. He has spoken for years and passionately about the dangers of climate change.
I think when measured against past endorsements she is a good second but not a first. Not a conspiracy, just how it is supposed to work.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)The consequences of going against Bernie are much less risky.
frylock
(34,825 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Google the organization and Carol Browner. It will become immediately apparent.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)They also took into account things she did while Secretary.
http://www.lcv.org/media/press-releases/LCV-Action-Fund-Endorses-Hillary-Clinton-for-President.html
karynnj
(59,503 posts)The lack of a date on that , explains why it is oddly out of chronological order. It hides that the bilateral relationship with China was done in 2014. That effort started when John Kerry spoke to the Chinese, found that they were open to working with him - not surprising as Kerry worked with the Chinese in the Bali conference in 2007. Obama okayed negotiations and Kerry himself played a key role. It is true that Todd Stern was very important to this effort, but without Kerry those negotiations would not have happened and for those entire negotiations he reported to Kerry, not Clinton.
Remember the debate where HRC spoke of hunting down the Chinese ... The agreement at Copenhagen was considered a disappointment to most in the diplomatic community. When she left as Secretary of State, the common wisdom is that NOTHING much would happen diplomatically on climate change. The reason - the Chinese were not working with us.
The Secretary who made climate change a signature issue is JOHN KERRY, who had worked on it for decades. When he was asked to be secretary, he told Obama that he wanted climate change to be as much an issue he addressed as women and children's issues were for Obama.
pandr32
(11,581 posts)But nice try. This is not the first dishonest tactic either--in fact, it is starting to look like business as usual--all is fair in love and war--and a faux revolution as well, right?
FrenchieCat
(68,867 posts)and so all of their hard work and progress won't be for nothing?
I don't think they endorsed solely on Votes....
as she's been First Lady, and Secretary of state....
and prior to that First lady of Arkansas....
etc.., etc..., etc...? just guessing.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)how the candidates are actually rated by the group.
That's been an issue all along. Groups that poll members, endorse Bernie. Others? Not so much.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)early and are basing them on presumed electability. They are not looking at the issues at all. They are running in fear that Trump will win.