Clinton: “Coal will be part of the energy mix for years to come, both in the U.S. and around the world.”

Eric Zuesse

The “Down with Tyranny” blog quotes Hillary Clinton’s statement in a recent letter to Democratic U.S. Senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin, assuring him that as President she won’t be overly aggressive to reduce the coal industry, because coal-mining jobs are at stake; thus: “Coal will be part of the energy mix for years to come, both in the U.S. and around the world.”

That blogger, who styles himself “Gaius Publius,” has excellent sources in the national Democratic Party, and he comments:

Clinton uses job-concern as a reason to seem like we should proceed carefully. But after all, a great many people in the U.S. are out of jobs — many in disappearing industries — and yet I’ll be willing to bet money she either signs TPP or refuses to renegotiate it; then signs TTIP and TISA, and with them, says goodbye to the last jobs worth having, save those near the top.

So, jobs? Maybe she cares only in this case? Or maybe she cares about something else as well. 

Personally, I don’t take her worrying about coal jobs any more seriously than I take her worrying about, say, manufacturing jobs. Remember, the Pennsylvania primary is coming soon, with West Virginia shortly after. And if she really cares about mitigating the aggressive destruction of the coal industry, there are ways to bail out people too, not just big carbon corporations and the banks that lend to them. …

I don’t think this is an unfair criticism of her, though some do think so. I find it an interesting implicit dog-whistle. “Don’t worry, coal bosses; we’ll foam your landing strip too.”

The blogger analogizes this to the bail-out of Wall Street, which Clinton supports: he says that she favored there, and still does, bailing out the lenders instead of bailing out the borrowers, and he thinks that in the coal issue she will protect the coal companies instead of protect their workers.

Hillary Clinton’s record, her vaunted “experience,” is remarkably consistent, in serving the people at the top, by serving to them the people at the bottom. Here are some of the relevant headlines, providing her record in this regard:

“Hillary Clinton’s Global-Burning Record”

“Hillary Clinton Backs Fast-Track on Obama’s Trade Deals”

“Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors”

“Hillary Clinton Is Backed by Major Republican Donors”

“Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes”

“Hillary v. Bernie: Their Two Opposite Views of the Presidency”

She’s “the experience candidate,” in the view of voters, as if the content of that “experience” doesn’t matter, and as if what matters instead is the posts she has occupied: First Lady for 8 years, U.S. Senator for 4 years, then Secretary of State for 4 years.

By contrast, Bernie Sanders has a record of having been a civil-rights organizer for Congress of Racial Quality while a student at the University of Chicago, then a Mayor of Burlington Vermont for 8 years, the U.S. Representative from Vermont for 18 years, and a U.S. Senator from Vermont for (now) 10 years. As regards his achievements in Congress, a good article about that is here.

Donald Trump has no political record, except as a donor to the campaigns of Democrats and Republicans — and, of course, as the heir of NYC real-estate mogul Fred Trump, Fred’s son who continued the growth of Fred’s business.

To summarize: Hillary Clinton has a consistent record of having served well her billionaire donors. Donald Trump has a consistent record of having been served well by the politicians to whom he has donated. Bernie Sanders has a consistent record of having served well the public who elected him to public office. (That’s why he has the highest approval-rating of all 100 U.S. Senators.)

It’s common for politicians to lie, and anyone who judges a candidate on the basis not of what he/she has done but instead on the basis of what he/she tells voters what that given politician will do is judging the candidate on an invalid basis.

So: would it be reasonable to assert that anyone (other than her major donors) who votes for Hillary Clinton is simply a sucker? Reader-comments here are welcomed to discuss this question, providing reasons why or why not that’s the case.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Born+Raised[D]

    My plan is to vote Sanders in the primary election
    and then alert ‘gender priority’ voters that
    Jill Stein is on the November/2016 presidential ballot
    and has THE realistic plan for human survival for all
    not just the luxury bunker international 1%.
    So,vote for Sanders then prepare to SWITCH HIT.

    • Charles Fasola

      Yeah, that’ll work. Pure genius you possess. Now seriously, beyond the fact that voting for any of the group of candidates cleared to run by the .01% , the CIA and the MIC helps to legitimize the fully corrupt, criminal electoral process in the US. A process the vast majority of the idiot public do not completely understand, and gxplain its workings to foreigners or even to their best freinds. A process that is rigged and

      • Ken Nordeen

        Vote your conscience;
        Spoil your ballot with unregistered write in,’Charles Fasola’.

      • Curious

        Charles,
        What would your platform be if you won the office?
        ….and you owed NO ONE favours.

        • Charles Fasola

          First, abolish the current FED and incorporate it into the US Treasury.. Second eliminate fractional reserve lending. Third have the Treasury spend money directly into the economy, rather than have the vast majority of money created electronically out of almost thin air through debt issuance.
          Fourth make it illegal for the US Military to engage in all offensive/interventionist actions. Make it a defensive force only. Unless it can be proven that intervention is due to a real threat to our national security. All such actions approved through national referendum.
          Free healthcare for all. Free college tuition for all students, with the stipulation that at least a 2.75 GPA is maintained after the first semester of freshman year.
          End citizens united, throuhh national referendum. Campaign reform. End the complete foolishness associated with balanced budgets. The government is not a household.
          There’s a start. Restructuring of the tax code. Elimination of tax loop holes that allow the very rich and many corps to avoid taxes. I cannot list everything here, anyway I ask?
          So would you like me to be king?

          • Curious

            Thanks for the reply;
            YES! KING CHARLES of North America
            What about energy?….do you like decentralized Hydrogen based electricity generation?http://www.boconline.co.uk/en/products-and-supply/industrial-products/hymera-generator/hymera-generator.html
            Would you detain Bush et al?……or just have special forces prosecute a’ trial by fire’?
            What about organic agriculture?

          • Charles Fasola

            I grow organic produce specializing in heirloom crops. They are sold at farmers markets and to restaurants.
            So my stance should be obvious. I must admit I am not familiar enough with hydrogen based electricity generation to have an opinion one way or another. However, overall I believe we must move away as quickly as possible from the use of fossil fuels and nuclear. Not just for the obvious reasons but also due to the corruption of government and policy the masters of those industries of death exist upon.
            Bush et all? Placed under arrest for war crimes, corruption, and crimes under the RICO act since they are members of a world wide organized crime syndicate. And lastly charge all with Treason for crimes too many to list.
            So, is the throne my own yet?

    • puswhipmamaboy

      ‘gender priority ‘ in and of itself is QUOTA type concern
      and may not provide the intended result;
      IE;Supreme WAR Queen Hillary I

  • kimyo

    As regards his achievements in Congress, a good article about that is here.

    from that list, what are your top 3? i see nothing there that i could use to convince anyone to vote for him. celebrating a victory lap on the v.a. scandal is quite premature, there’s still (as of september) 600,000 vets waiting for care.

    if that’s all he’s got to show for 20+ years in dc then may god have pity on our nation.

  • Mar 14, 2016 Facing backlash, Clinton says coal still has a future FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP)

    Facing a backlash from Appalachian Democrats, Hillary Clinton’s campaign on Monday tried to reaffirm her commitment to coal communities one day after declaring on national television she was going to “to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

    http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2016/03/14/facing-backlash-clinton-says-coal-still-has-a-future-n2133762

    08/23/2014 George Soros Invests Big In Fracking Company Despite Funding Green Groups

    Despite being known for backing left-wing groups generally opposed to fossil fuels, billionaire investor George Soros invested hundreds of millions of dollars in a major coal and natural gas producer.

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/15/george-soros-invests-big-in-fracking-company-despite-funding-green-groups/#ixzz3BFGyl7uu

    December 6, 2012 Matt Damon Surprised To Learn His Anti-Fracking Film Was Funded By Foreign Oil Wealth

    http://cnsnews.com/blog/mike-ciandella/matt-damon-surprised-learn-his-anti-fracking-film-was-funded-foreign-oil-wealth

  • I addition everyone should know this huge detail as well.

    The Origins of Oil – falsely defined in 1892

    Col Fletcher Prouty explains how oil was falsely classified a “fossil fuel” in 1892 and how that deception was advanced further in the 70’s by Kissinger and Rockefeller. Prouty also explains that Nixon/Kissinger/Rockefeller were seeking a ‘world oil price’.

    https://youtu.be/vdSjyvIHVLw