(Senator Hillary) Clinton lashes out at big oil in speech here (Chicago)

[Omaha Steve]

Full story: http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-clinton09.html#



Clinton lashes out at big oil in speech here

August 9, 2006

BY SCOTT FORNEK Political Reporter

In a fiery speech to union members in Chicago, Democratic U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York on Tuesday lit into the oil company that had to temporarily shut down a corroded Alaskan pipeline, arguing the firm should be held responsible for fixing it.

"BP should use some of the billions of dollars in excess, windfall profits to fix that pipeline without passing on the cost to the rest of us," Clinton said to thunderous applause. "I am tired of cleaning up the messes of oil companies that are making more money than they know what to do with."

'Enough is enough'

The former first lady and potential 2008 Democratic presidential candidate spoke at the annual convention of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees at McCormick Place, sounding a strongly partisan call for change. "We have to change the direction of this country starting in November by electing Democrats," Clinton said. "Now more than ever we need to show up and vote to take our country back."

While Clinton made no mention of any presidential ambitions, she called electing Democrats in the mid-term elections in November "the first step."


The Senator's speech was delivered to 6,000 delegates at the AFSCME 37th International Convention.

[MrCoffee]

1. The Big Three are burning up the phone lines to Washington

Quick, divert attention away from the fact that we've done jack shit to increase gas mileage, or to work on viable alternatives to gas, or reduce emissions!! Blame Big Oil, Congress, and do it now! It's the pipeline, stupid!

Dingell was gonna open an investigation into the BP pipeline the other day. Now Hillary is on the case. Thank god, Congress is working on it. We can all sleep easier now.

The silence from Ted Stevens' office is deafening.

[jobycom]

2. Hillary's been doing her part. You should get busy.

Hillary's record on oil companies:

"I want to go after the oil companies and the oil speculators and the manipulators of the money, because they're the ones who I think are really behind this," Clinton told an audience in Elmira Heights on Thursday. "You have a hurricane, and all of a sudden you see prices going up like that. That has . . . everything to do with people trying to make money off the backs of this tragedy."
Clinton criticized the new energy bill, which she opposed, as inadequate to solve the country's long-term energy problem. She said the United States has regressed over the past three decades, since the first oil shocks of the early 1970s. "We've had 30 years to do some things we haven't done," she said. "In fact we've gotten, we've gone backwards in many respects.
"I am tired of being at the mercy of people in the Middle East and elsewhere, and I'm tired frankly of being at the mercy of these large oil companies," Clinton said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/02/AR2005090202079.html

The energy market we have is broken. At the heart of the crude oil market is a cartel run by a handful of countries, and a global supply chain run by a handful of companies. The market is certainly working well for the oil companies. In 2004, the world’s 10 largest oil companies had combined profits of $100 billion. In 2005, those profits are headed even higher.

I believe that we need to assess the oil companies an alternative energy development fee to be put into the new Strategic Energy Fund. We should design the fee so it is taken solely out of unanticipated profits from the sky high oil prices and ensure that it is not passed on to consumers. It could generate as much as $20 billion a year to help retool our economy and deploy new energy strategies.

We used to make polluters pay for their clean-up through Superfund.

And now we need for the oil companies to share the burden of lifting America up and out of the looming energy crisis.
http://www.clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=247652&&

Our present system of energy is weakening our national security, hurting our pocketbooks, violating our common values, and threatening our children's future. Right now, instead of national security dictating our energy policy, our failed energy policy dictates our national security. We would never leave 10 percent of our military or intelligence assets vulnerable to an easy attack, but that's what we've allowed to happen with oil.

So I support comprehensive legislation that would overhaul our energy taxes; signal the market we're in this for the long run by extending for 10 years the production tax credit; spur demand by doubling consumer tax breaks for hybrids, clean diesel and other advanced vehicles; and create a new tax incentive for fleet owners to purchase more efficient vehicles; speed the development of cellulosic ethanol by providing loan guarantees for the first billion gallons of commercial production capacity; ramp up the availability of ethanol by providing gas station owners with a 50 percent tax credit for the cost of installing ethanol pumps; and then extend and increase tax incentives for homeowners and businesses who will make their homes and businesses more energy-efficient. There's a lot of good information out there about how to do it, but unfortunately not much incentive to do it.

The strategic energy fund would allow government and business to work together to help solve some of the toughest scientific challenges that we have to deal with when it comes to energy and climate. You know, we have the National Institutes of Health that promotes partnerships for innovation. We ought to have something like a National Institute of Energy.

That's why last September I proposed a research agency modeled on DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and I was delighted that later that fall a National Academy of Science report endorsed the concept.

(read this whole speech)
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Hailing_Gore_committed_visionary_Clinton_unveils_0523.html

[Vidar]

3. Good for Hillary.

[acmavm]

4. I personally don't give a damn about what the motivations are

of any reps who want to jump bad on the most corrupt corporate entities on this planet (along with KBR and Halliburton, of course). Just so they frigging finally DO SOMETHING.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

5. I find it amazing

That when HRC says something that can be taken out of context or willfully misinterpreted to sound Republican -- (a la "while I support a woman's right to abortion, I do think we should be doing what we can to lower the number of abortions in this country" (paraphrasing, btw)) -- the post count on the thread will be up in the triple-digits with people piling on and distorting her words and getting their dander up.

However, when she makes a statement that virtually everyone at this site agrees on -- about something that almost no other politician is willing to attack -- and that can't really be distorted, the story fades away with barely a comment.

[rodeodance]

6. you go gal and Thank you

[cenacle]

7. I don't know what to think of Senator Clinton sometimes...

but I do know that many people struggle with her for her war stance. It's hard to get beyond that. I think if she comes around, calls for rapid troop withdrawal, and means it, many will give her views on other issues a more sympathetic listen. In truth, I want to like her, support her more, wish her well. But as long as she will not take a stance against the wars in the Middle East, I stand across a chasm from her. I think others hold this view too.