Home | About | Donate

Holding Clinton’s Feet to the Fire On Climate


Holding Clinton’s Feet to the Fire On Climate

Nick Cunningham

Recent difficulties aside, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the odds on favorite to win the presidency this year—and climate advocates are uneasy about what to expect.

She faced immense pressure from a remarkably successful campaign from Senator Bernie Sanders in the presidential primary, which pushed her to the left on an array of issues. She staked out seemingly aggressive positions on climate change, but often left wiggle room in her language, making her pledges far from assured.


Anyone who thinks they'll be able to 'hold Clinton's feet to the fire' on anything is seriously deluded -

unless they're among her wealthy donors.

They purchased blow-torches.

The rest of us, we're just kindling.

Burn baby burn.


I've been thinking of gathering use of the phrase "we'll hold his feet to the fire" in 2008 and 2016 correlating it with its use and effectiveness, but it would be too depressing. Somewhere during Hillary's term (if she wins), I expect smiley posts from "Revolutionaries for Hillary"...if she can somehow brand herself as "cool". (It will be quite a feat, to be sure.)


All you have to do is to bookmark the article of interest, and save the bookmark. There is an icon for copying the URL of the bookmark. Then go back to CD and touch the box where you want the link to be. Then touch paste.


I do not believe that CD has the power to stop a new user from posting links. Copying and pasting links is an inherent part of the Internet. Did someone at CD actually tell you that you were too new to be allowed to start posting links? The first amendment applies to CD, I think.


Pick two.


By far the biggest problem for Clinton as well as climate activists is the Republican Party. Is it nuts? Suicidal? Crazy? Most of it members deny some of the most well proven facts in all of science. This isn't about quarks, or glucons, or femions, or bosons. Its about temperature, ice melting, droughts, floods, etc. Something every Republican should be able to readily comprehend. But they refuse to. So regardless of Clinton's intentions she has to face that. Personally, I think Clinton will be almost all we can ask on climate change. There is tremendous pressure internationally to take strong action, particularly from the European countries, but also many small island countries, and various countries around the world that are concerned about sea level rise, droughts, etc. Domestic climate activists also will be pressuring her to act. However, states may be more important than the federal government. The states by themselves really can do much of what is necessary. But the big problem is that many states have governors who are Republicans. I think the best states on climate are New York and California, both with Democratic governors. But then there are states like Florida with Republican Rick Scott as governor.


Yes, Trump - a man of the people - will much more readily respond to pressure from environmental activism!


That's actually a pretty decent reply. :slight_smile:

I've previously described the Republicans and Dems on Climate change as 'know nothing' vs. 'do nothing'. It still holds true.


Though I agree with the attitude of your comment; mostly the last sentence, I will have to add a division in [LEV "leftists," and liberal/"progressive" media hacks] and [The "Left" in the U.S.] and [liberal/progressive/leftist idiots] These are the Clinton Trolls, the elected and appointed officials and many of them stand to lose a lot depending on their position in the Government. Clinton will, as Obama has, enrich them in one way or another. Not to mention the paid Trolls we encounter in these comments.

The division comes between those of us that are the voters and the ones mentioned above.
Remember the old saying, "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit"? Too many, I'm afraid, have bought the baffle. Clinton has to keep up the 'hype', as she did the night before the California Primaries, to assure that slam- dunk to victory.

The "sowed seeds of cynicism among young people" is a lesson they needed to learn as Clinton is now calling out to them to join her rather than calling them names. I believe these voters know the difference between a wall and a bridge and many of them realize that that wall still stands and won't accept the pandering for their vote.

I submit this link for Jill Stein as it best represents the bulk of my opinion without the cussing. http://www.narvinsingh.com/choose-no-evil-the-case-for-jill-stein I've been with her since the day of the convention. She is the better of the less, of the less of Two evils.


Does anyone actually think that we are living under the rule of representative democracy when nothing can be further from the truth. How is it that you equate our elections being controlled by only two country club like, private organizations, with glaring conflict of interests to open and fair elections, to democracy?

We are virtually the only democratic country in the world that is limited to two political parties. These parties are allowed to dictate the rules and laws concerning elections from the most local to national. They have not only utilized this ability to disenfranchise the majority of the nation's electorate with the institution of closed primaries, but have added the insult of requiring the very people prohibited from participating in these elections to pay for them.

They have additionally been tasked with setting the rules for 3rd party participation in presidential debates, and have once again taken advantage of this by instituting virtually impossible requirements for them to do so. This unethical and undemocratic situation allowed them to systematically ignore the constituency's will with impunity.

It is incumbent for every voter to vote their conscience by supporting the candidate that best reflects their values, priorities and morals. For anyone to suggest otherwise is an affront to democratic ideals.

Because of the two party duopoly, the establishment candidates are so unaccountable that they have the entitlement to offer us as part of their platform, fracking, continued destruction of our planet's ability to sustain life, continued fossil fuel dependence, ever escalating additions to our already bloated military and intelligence budgets, corporate welfare, military adventurism, ad nauseam. Theses policies do not reflect my values, priorities or morals and I would go so far as to assert that if they reflect yours, you suck as a human being.

But nonetheless I am expected to vote for a thoroughly corrupt, pathologically lying, pandering, politically expedient, inconsistent, immoral, unprincipled, unethical, warmongering, hypocritical, 1%er, corporate puppet, because if I don't I'll get an even worse thoroughly corrupt, pathologically lying, pandering, politically expedient, inconsistent, immoral, unprincipled, unethical, warmongering, hypocritical, 1%er, corporate puppet.

This establishment political leadership's extortionist 'lesser of two evils' narrative is exactly the reason the we have the two most untrustworthy and disliked candidate in the history of American presidential election. Only until we abandon the establishment parties will we have a government even remotely concerned with advancing the greater good of our nation.


Bravo! You summed it up better than anyone I have ever read on CD!