Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Why The League of Conservation Voters Was WRONG To Endorse Hillary Clinton
"...It is the responsibility of organizations like the League of Conservation Voters to push candidates to adopt strong stances, and to help guide the climate movement to elect the leaders we need. However, LCV has cut short the mobilizing process of democratic engagement and endorsed a candidate whose climate platform it knows full well is insufficient...."
Last month, the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) Action Fund took the unprecedented step of endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, after only one debate between the Democratic candidates and months before the first vote in the Democratic primaries will be cast. That was a big mistake. It’s far too early in this primary for the nation’s most powerful environmental political organization to endorse. In 2004, LCV’s endorsement of John Kerry before the New Hampshire primary was unprecedented in its early timing, but at least came after Kerry’s strong victory in the Iowa caucuses. There is no such defense today. Furthermore, by LCV’s own metrics, Clinton has the weakest environmental record of the Democratic candidates. Bernie Sanders is the highest rated candidate on the LCV scorecard, as well as the scorecard put out by my organization, the Climate Hawks Vote PAC. Martin O’Malley was the first and so far the only candidate to release a comprehensive presidential climate agenda. LCV is a good political organization — one the best in the country working on any issue. The millions of dollars it raises and spends each year and the millions of voters it reaches with a pro-climate message are a crucial bulwark against the radical Republican agenda. Nine times out of 10, the group does great work — but this time it grossly miscalculated.
~snip~
I’ll leave it to others to speculate what, in fact, motivated LCV to endorse Clinton. No matter the reasons, the decision deprived the group of a crucial chance to push her on climate throughout the primary. And its decision made it harder for the rest of the environmental movement to do so too. Not good for the climate, and not good for Clinton. Let’s be clear: Hillary Clinton, like Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, has the ability to be a powerful climate leader, unlike any of the corrupt and dangerous Republican candidates. But the reality of the climate crisis is uncompromising. Our challenge is to elect fierce, uncompromising climate hawks. LCV has declared Clinton the best despite the fact that she has the weakest, most mixed record on climate and the environment of any of the three candidates. As secretary of state, Clinton promoted the internationalization of fracking and oversaw the State Department’s initial support for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The one major climate accomplishment she touts, the Copenhagen Accord, is considered by climate activists to be a huge failure. Clinton is the only candidate with deep ties to the financiers and lobbyists of the fossil-fuel industry, on Wall Street and beyond. Clinton supports the continued exploitation of our nation’s public carbon reserves, while Sanders has introduced legislation that would put an end to fossil-fuel leases on public lands. Sanders and O’Malley actively support the climate divestment movement, while Clinton — whose campaign and super PAC accept funding from fracking investors and fossil-fuel industry lobbyists — has not taken a position.
cont'
http://grist.org/climate-energy/why-the-league-of-conservation-voters-was-wrong-to-endorse-hillary-clinton/
~snip~
I’ll leave it to others to speculate what, in fact, motivated LCV to endorse Clinton. No matter the reasons, the decision deprived the group of a crucial chance to push her on climate throughout the primary. And its decision made it harder for the rest of the environmental movement to do so too. Not good for the climate, and not good for Clinton. Let’s be clear: Hillary Clinton, like Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, has the ability to be a powerful climate leader, unlike any of the corrupt and dangerous Republican candidates. But the reality of the climate crisis is uncompromising. Our challenge is to elect fierce, uncompromising climate hawks. LCV has declared Clinton the best despite the fact that she has the weakest, most mixed record on climate and the environment of any of the three candidates. As secretary of state, Clinton promoted the internationalization of fracking and oversaw the State Department’s initial support for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The one major climate accomplishment she touts, the Copenhagen Accord, is considered by climate activists to be a huge failure. Clinton is the only candidate with deep ties to the financiers and lobbyists of the fossil-fuel industry, on Wall Street and beyond. Clinton supports the continued exploitation of our nation’s public carbon reserves, while Sanders has introduced legislation that would put an end to fossil-fuel leases on public lands. Sanders and O’Malley actively support the climate divestment movement, while Clinton — whose campaign and super PAC accept funding from fracking investors and fossil-fuel industry lobbyists — has not taken a position.
cont'
http://grist.org/climate-energy/why-the-league-of-conservation-voters-was-wrong-to-endorse-hillary-clinton/
23 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
will have you believe the strangest things beyond all realities......the trick for them is to present a spellbinding performance before the public awakes or the Primaries are over. At which point, they will change costumes and begin stage preparations for the next theatrical scene titled GE-101.....
"...LCV has declared Clinton the best despite the fact that she has the weakest, most mixed record on climate and the environment of any of the three candidates..."
"..LCV has cut short the mobilizing process of democratic engagement and endorsed a candidate whose climate platform it knows full well is insufficient...."
"..But Clinton hasn’t yet done the work to earn the passionate support of the nation’s climate activists — and LCV’s rash decision makes it less likely that she ever will..."
"..LCV has cut short the mobilizing process of democratic engagement and endorsed a candidate whose climate platform it knows full well is insufficient...."
"..But Clinton hasn’t yet done the work to earn the passionate support of the nation’s climate activists — and LCV’s rash decision makes it less likely that she ever will..."
Aah yes,.....great reasons for LCV to quickly endorse Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.......why didn't I recognize the merit in this endorsement?......the logic is so self-evident.....its beyond crystal clear....
before I understood her true nature. 
I got that 
What kind of excuses would they use, if they didn't?
Sid