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
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Clinton: Does the wording of her position on Keystone leave open a future reversal of her position? [View all]FSogol
(47,664 posts)18. Translation: Were her fingers crossed?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
45 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Clinton: Does the wording of her position on Keystone leave open a future reversal of her position? [View all]
Skwmom
Sep 2015
OP
No it's purposeful. She objects to a distraction she does -not- object to the KXL.
HereSince1628
Sep 2015
#11
Distraction from what? Combating climate change is largely the project of blocking pipelines.
Cheese Sandwich
Sep 2015
#6
Maybe a distraction from HRC's past role on this OR a distraction to her run for the nomination. nt
karynnj
Sep 2015
#26
You might be on to something -- I had thought the response weird - almost forced and angry that
karynnj
Sep 2015
#25
As with any politician, WHAT THEY DO is much more important than WHAT THEY SAY,
Maedhros
Sep 2015
#34
It sounds like she doesn't understand why climate activists oppose Keystone
Dems to Win
Sep 2015
#39