Home | About | Donate

Why It Matters if Candidates Like Hillary Clinton Take Fossil Fuel Money



With her demonstrated fealty to the petrodollar (think Libya, for starters), Hillary has proven herself to be so enmeshed in the establishment (Big Banks, Big Oil, Big MIC, etc.) that she has zero credibility. I like watching her squirm like the worm that she is. Bye, bye Goldwater Girl.


The Washington Post gave the Sanders campaign three Pinocchios on this one for exaggerations but putting that aside the only way to keep fossil fuels int he ground is to build an infrastructure that makes burning fossil fuels for energy unnecessary. That means widespread implementation of renewable energy sources like wind and solar, electric cars, heating with geothermal and electric heat pumps, energy efficiency measures to reduce the demand for energy, energy conservation measures, etc. The Republicans take a lot of money from fossil fuel companies and the Democrats don't. The Republicans are the drill baby drill party not the Democrats. Before going into a fight it is important to identify the enemy. Fighting against a political party that is on your side doesn't make too much sense.


Thank you Kelly Mitchell.

Fossil fuel extraction and burning must stop now----(should have stopped yesterday)

We obviously don’t have time for this (seemingly endless) "transition to clean energy via bridge fuels" (i.e. fracking) Clinton CLEARLY support this death knell to the biosphere.

Humans cannot keep extracting fossil fuels and burning them. I believe this is our last chance for a movement-----even if it is a hail Mary movement (which I believe would be the case)-------to get corporate money out of politics and keep fossil fuels in the ground.

It is unacceptable for the Clinton campaign to take money from lobbyists for the FF industry. It is unacceptable for her NOT to sign the pledge to refuse $$ from those tied to the fossil fuel industry. HRC has oil, frack sand/bitumin on her hands along with blood from wars/regime changes she supported.

I agree with Bernie Sanders when he states:
“ you cannot take on an industry if you take their money”

It is a relief and an inspiration to see that Bernie Sanders is not backing down on this----- the most important issue that we face today.

It is shameful of the DNC to minimize the realities that Greenpeace AND the Sanders campaign are bringing into the light: fossil fuel corporations integral connections with and control over politicians.

This is the issue at hand: fossil fuel industry buying off politicians and the politicians who take their money choosing greed and lust for power over a habitable planet. Exhibit A: Hillary Clinton.



Shock of shocks----this from NPR:

“Bernie Sanders and his supporters don't consider moving Hillary Clinton to the left a goal or even really a victory of any kind. They want to change America, not the stated positions of another candidate. And while he may not be beating her in the delegate race at the moment, there's an argument that Sanders has already won by getting the issues he cares about into the political blood stream.”


There have been many nonsensical statements made on this forum (just like any other internet forum) but this latest from you has got to be the all-time winner. Please come to Ohio, or West Virginia, or Pennsylvania, or Illinois, or Montana or for that matter Jerry Brown's California. I've finally figured out what Lrx is short-hand for: lascivious republican cross-dresser, which is what the Democratic Party establishment has become as a whole. Wealthy interests sponsor the campaigns of whomever they believe will win, irrespective of party, as you in your blue dog kennel should be able to olfactorally verify. Your darling Hillary, no matter how fast she runs, can not escape her own shadow. And if you reply that sentiments like mine might destroy the established Democratic Party, then you finally will have said something I will agree with.

What say you CD community: is this latest from Lrx the most laughable comment so far of this year?

Down with the bloody big head. Down with the bloody red queen.

You cite WaPo? Really? I mean, REALLY? That rag has been firing dud torpedoes at Sanders' campaign for months. And your very last line is the epitome of mendacity. The Democratic Party and most of its elected politicians are most definitely not on my side or on the side of most ordinary Americans (case in point - the (un)Affordable Care Act - f%$#!$g a.) The Democratic Party establishment is on its own side, rooting for and benefitting only itself. To keep dishing out the Gravy Train in the blue dog kennel.

But I'm not angry or anything.


Good luck with getting her to give back the $$$$$ she took from the fossil fuel industry! She is gross, people. Like Charlton Heston with his gun, you will have to pry that money from her dead cold hands. She took fracking money because she believes in fracking. She is a liar and will say anything to make fools believe that she cares about you or our environment. Gaddhafi believed her too and look what happened to him.


Please don't use the WP as fact checker, hardly fair and balanced or has done their homework which like NPR which the public should unfund. You've lost your credibility.


Picture Hillary as President. Smiling as she hands a small pox infected blanket to each of us.


The article touches upon what the heart of this problem and why there seems such short sightedness over the issue.

Hurricane Sandy cost 65000000000$

That was 65 billion in what is measured as GDP growth. That in part 65 billion spent on goods to effect repairs which translated into wages paid to workers, profits made by firms and added demand inside of the economy for virtually everything it produces .

Ultimately as far as the "market" is concerned along with the profits that accrue to a given business the disaster that was hurricane sandy is seen as a good thing just as rising rates of cancer is seen as a good thing by the for profit medical industry .

This will continue to happen just as long as profits and livelihoods are made off such events because entire sectors of economies rely on such profits in order to exist.

The entire concept of profits and the reasons for which they generated has to be re-examined. This might well have to start with the dismantlIng of the Corporate model.


Opposing the woman's egregious pro-corporate policies is one thing but all this inciting of hatred for an individual is anything BUT Progressive.

Hate Radio along with Hate speech tend to be the favored tools of organizations that range from the KKK to the shock jocks of right wing talk radio.

A lot of the hatred for Mrs. Clinton IS misogynistic in nature.

I don't see this hate fest so enthusiastically shown in response to the policies of Obama, Bush, Reagan, etc.

I am NOT a Hillary supporter; yet speaking as a Feminist, I find this Hate Speech retrograde, spiritually retarded, and appalling.


Wait! Let's look a little deeper.

The idea of profit itself has impact on humanity and Earth.

Pollution spewed is money saved and counted as profit. Advertising to brainwash people into ignoring this illusion of profit is tax deductible.

Fix what is glaringly wrong before throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Heal our young soldiers who lived, breathed, bathed and cooked in the billowing pollution of toxic burn pits.

Cancel every single subsidy in the name of tough love. Make advertising free speech instead of a business expense. Offset income tax with carbon tax. Let a few years go by and see where we are.

Balance the budget. It is the constitutional right of living taxpayers to pay for endless war out of pocket.


Wow! You're right. Tamara Keith sounds almost...unbiased! Wow! I hope she doesn't get chastised or fired!


They all take corporate money but some take only the advocacy contributions and others seem to be offering something the corporations really want. Consider that Hillary has spoken to Banksters and Wall St. manipulators 91 times since leaving office. That's a pretty large percentage of her schedule. I don't see compelling reasons to imagine anything other that that she is in their pocket. We all must form our own conclusions.


Your constitutional rights do nothing to protect you against another hurricane Sandy or sea level rise.

They will do nothing to protect you against runaway global warming.

There is no baby in the bathwater that is not affected by the toxins and contaminants in the same and suffering from cancers and things like autism and allergies to something as simple as a peanut.

It is under the guise of Constitutional rights that Corporations claim the right to extract what they deem as their property from the natural world

What exactly do you deem worth saving from the current model and how do you think constitutional rights can defend you against the Next Katrina or Sandy?


SDP, you've squarely nailed it.
The corporation as concept MUST be revisited; it should be radically amended to remove the ludicrous, dangerous (and ARBITRARY) threat it poses to democracy, the body politic and the sources of our literal survival (water, air).

The corporation is a legal FICTION that we humans created out of NOTHING.


The actual enemy is the fossil fuel industry. I know this from experience with it.