At least I hope he does.

let's hope.

convictions and the courage of them; if Obama is on board, I can see this pipeline going nowhere!

Stay strong, Mr. Secretary and Mr. President.

Lot of pressure on him from the environmentalists and green groups out there. Hopeful Obama goes green also, but IDK.

SoS Kerry has voted against Keystone and everything in his background would make him PERSONALLY want to speak against this - I suspect especially after the Arkansas spill. (In addition, I hope Teresa is asking him to stay true to what he knows is right.)

On the other side, it is very clear that there are significant powers that are pushing for this. In addition, Obama has given approvals for parts of it. We know that HRC was for it -- and we know the people she picked to study it were not unbiased scientists. Assume that Obama has already decided not to spend political capital on this AND the green groups have not been activist enough to put a price on the other side.

Do you want -

1) Kerry to go with his conscience (knowing the last few times he went against his gut - IWR and Edwards, his gut was absolutely right.) AND have Obama overrule him and take whatever heat he gets alone.

2) Kerry realizes that the last 3 years have boxed Obama in and to ignore his own reputation (one that he earned over 4 decades as an environmentalist) will be tarnished with most of the people he has fought for and with, just as was the case with many looking for Kerry to lead against going to war.

I hope Kerry goes with 1, there is NOTHING that can mitigate the disaster of approving this. It will at some point leak and it will be an environmental disaster. (The Clintons already presided over environmental disasters in Arkansas - so this likely was not visceral for HRC) Obama - in all fairness - though good on many issues has few credentials or any known interest in the environment.

Kerry saying he is not in favor does not stop Obama from approving it -- and it does not destroy either Kerry or Obama to disagree.

I found a parallel example in an unlikely way. I attended a lecture at a VT college about SoS Marshall and his advice to Truman on Israel. In America, the UN resolution that led to Israel's birth was very popular. George Marshall, one of the greatest SoS ever advised Truman to vote against it. His reason was that the partition was impractical and would lead to a second Holocaust. The partition actually created two states - neither had all parts contiguous. His view was that diving an area the size of Vermont could not work. As we all know, Truman (and the US) was the first world leader to recognize Israel and they did vote yes.

This example is relevant - Keystone and Israel/Palestine were BOTH very big issues and both had potential long term impacts that once done could not be undone. The President and SoS disagreed - both had strong reasons for having the position they did. ( Truman was also influenced by the public opinion.)

The lecturer, who was a professor and an archivist of George Marshall's papers was asked Marshall's reaction. His response was to tell the press that his job was to give the President the best advice he could ... and the President's job was to make the decision. This situation could be the same,

Some here have said that Kerry disagreeing with Obama would hurt Obama or would threaten Kerry's position. In fact, if an honest disagreement on one issue was something that Obama would demand Kerry resign over - he should resign. Not just for this issue, but because if disagreeing means that you are out, you might as well not be there. Personally I think that Obama is a bigger person than that and knows that a range of advice is better than an echo chamber.

More optimistically, I would hope that Kerry and climate scientists and ALL environmentalist will convince Obama. Where is America's usual xenophobia? Why are we allowing the length of the country to be put at risk to benefit a Canadian corporation? They have already destroyed parts of Alberta - why make it cheaper for them to continue ravaging that area.

#1 is the best option. Go with your gut and let the chips fall where they may.

Also hope that Momma T can have a behind the scenes say with him, especially after the Arkansas pipeline leak, and others which Rachel Maddow (she is hot/cold sometimes) highlighted a few days ago.

Kerry did say in other thread to Miz Greenspan about Obama not wanting "yes people" in his cabinet, and remain hopeful that he and climate gurus and environmentalists can convince Obama. (don't know who Bill McKibben is, but he wrote some articles in the Nation and another blog about Kerry's "fateful" decision on KXL and highlighted the connections of Clinton, Obama, and Kerry's past campaign staffers tied to TransCanada and Alberta). Was going to post the links, but deleted them because they might have had a left slant to them.

Other interesting tidbits (don't know these matter) is that COS McDonough put climate change on the Obama agenda. Obama was at a fundraiser in Frisco at the home of a staunch Keystone XL opponent, (overshadowed by the Obama-AG Harris kerfuffle of course), and Burton said that poll numbers were not going to influence his decision.

To be honest, more dialog is needed on project and the issue of fracking. The problem is that most Americans aren't familiar KXL and its consequences. They only hear that it creates jobs and the unions are for it because they are part of the Dem base that Dems need in 2014/16. Hopeful that the leaks will change Obama's mind, but he is realizing the semi-consequences of appointing Clinton people in his first term.

Your last paragraph - and an Obama comment on people being more concerned with the economy rather than the environment are the at the root of the dilemma. The pro pipeline people have inflated the economic pluses. One hard piece of information in the State Department report is that it will create only 35 permanent job

As to Clinton people - of course, he would have hired Clinton people. ANY Democrat who wanted to work in government in the 1990s would have considered doing so. Many far more progressive and liberal than the Clintons.

That was a great blog post - he is a liberal/progressive activist on the environment.

Making an effort to be more positive around here these days.

Spot on about everything here. Haven't brushed up on the Truman-Marshall history, but it's informative. And what you have said is true about the Clinton people.

read at least some things on Israel's early years. In fact, it was a fluke that I heard this. We live in Burlington now and my husband saw a flyer for the talk (open to the public) at a synagogue we have gone to. It sounded interesting (and was) so we went.

When I started to answer your comment, it hit me that this was - if anything - a bigger President/SOS disagreement and I really liked Marshall's comment - that I hoped I got close to correct.

*fingers still crossed*


Thought do not like him being stuck with something he voted against as Senator. And do not like that his environmental creds and effectiveness is being demeaned to praise the work of Markey and Warren, (and bash his former aide aka the talented Councilwoman Ayanna Pressley, who is considering running for Mayor of Boston just to praise others in the running), but guess that is how wannabe pols/ Dem activists operate, vile and it is. sheesh.

And also do not like the game that is played here. Though all for keeping the pressure on and it is Obama's decision in the end; some of those people from Code Pink to all the environmental groups should have been writing those letters to Sec. HRC who was all for this project. There is a slow wake up to how BC/HC use people when it comes to policies.

May get dismissed as being concerned, but do not like to see decent (ok good) public servants get thrown under the bus and be pressured to go against everything they stand for.

Again, all for the Sec. State Kerry going with gut and letting the chips fall where they may.

but some bloggers and tweets are just stupid. You have to take them for what they are, stupid.

Markey is good. If anything, I see a lot of progressives diminishing his creds because they want something more flashy. This is stupid. If I do not have Kerry for senator, I want Markey.

Yes, when you support somebody, you will try to show his opponents in a less favorable way. The other thing I would say is that there are domains where Warren IS more effective than Kerry was. Banking is the obvious. I am not upset if somebody says that Warren brings something when it comes to banking. This said, I think it is unfair to a couple other senators, like Brown and Sanders, who have been there for a lot longer than she is (as a senator and as a Democrat) and are effective too.

What you have to get is that the game is played for the media and a very small circle of supporters, and they only care about a 10 second clip (My guess is 30 seconds is too long at this point). Warren, who has worked on these issues with people like Doctor Phil for years, is good at that. Will she make a better senator for that? Only time will say, but at this point, she attracts the media and a ridiculous number of people saying she should run for president (really?). But you also see heads explode when she takes position that do not belong to what her supporters think she should do (yes, tax on medical devices, and a few others).

So, be careful. Those shiny objects become less shiny with time (Look at Obama, he has disappointed a lot of people, both those who say it and those who do not because they do not want to add to the bashing).

Coming back to the Boston Mayor race, I will say it here once more. With that many candidates, it is a shame that there is no women running. I hope she runs. The idea she should not run because she will split votes with Arroyo is ridiculous. Let's hope she runs, for women and for minorities. (I do not live in the Boston area anymore, but it is time to get the city out of the old boys' club.

I hope Kerry does not feel compelled to follow Obama's lead on Keystone (hard to believe he does not want the pipeline when he signed on his southern part in 2012), but we will see.

and focusing on the local (progressive) issues that matter. There is another AA woman (from the current mayor's office) that is considering running, but hasn't said anything publicly yet. It will be interesting to see how things play out.

I have not been much into political Twitter and blogs since the dustup in this group awhile back; because they have become a 365 zoo of outrageous and stupid. You are right, they are stupid. (The Markey being boring thing sounds so American Idol). Let him, Warren, Kerry, and Pressley shine without pining them against each other. It's not a competition, it's about who are best qualified to run things and get the job done, which is why the US media still is a big joke.

The parts about Warren are interesting. Good luck to her. It may not be long before she gets called an "emoprog" by the so-called pragmatic Dems. Sanders has already won first place on the Emo Honor Roll. Beginning to think it's not about Obama, Biden, etc just trying to make a living being outraged at everyone or anything 24-7.

Also agree about Obama (there have been some things to disagree with him on i.e. education), but the outrage (not saying that it is not sincere) can be so middle school in social media land, which is why I have been sticking to music on Twitter (that can get crazy too!) and blogs.

Thanks for the perspective on the Boston Mayor (media) race. You, Tay and others are right, MA is a diva state. TN is a when it's convenient-volunteer state.

As for Keystone, still remain hopeful that Kerry can rock and roll (hat tip to babylonsister) with the murky kxl. Didn't know that Obama already signed on the southern part, but it is interesting that it is not included in the budget (do not know if that is a good/bad thing).

However, it sounded like he is/was telling environmentalists to brace themselves for the final decision in his speech in Frisco last week, but agree, we shall see.


Thanks for the petition. Peace.





edit to change issue to "issues"

... http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/294269-overnight-energy-kerry-faces-house-as-keystone-simmers

Testifying on Wednesday...

maybe? From PS thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023092749

Sounds like the WH is punting the ball over to State.

I haven't done the research--SOS Clinton arranged for the Keystone project to be a done deal, but she didn't sign off on it. That was to be left for the next SOS: John Kerry. Therefore, he would have been blamed for the Keystone deal becoming a reality and she would come out of it smelling like a rose. Am I right or am I wrong?

that I haven't done the research--it could sink Mrs. Clinton's chances of becoming president in 2016 should she decide to run. Once voters learn that she paved the way for the Keystone project to become a reality, she might lose the nomination; again, should she decide to run.

I posted the same thing twice. Sorry!