Video: Hillary Clinton says she changed position on ethanol because transportation cost is no longer a factor
In the above video, Hillary explains her shift from voting against ethanol to supporting it in her energy plan. Hillary says she voted against ethanol on behalf of her constituents because subsidizing ethanol in the middle of the country would raise prices in New York. Hillary says she can now support ethanol because there is a broader base for ethanol in New York, which she helped create, making transportation cost no longer a factor. Here is exactly what she said:
The fact is that when we first had an occasion to vote on ethanol back in the early part of my term, I voted on behalf of my constituents. There was very credible evidence, that it would, if all we did was subsidize ethanol in the middle of the country, raise gas prices on both coasts which would have directly driven up the cost in New York and I didn't think that would be a good idea for a senator from New York and what I have been pleased about and I had a role in this, was to create a much broader base for ethanol. We now have ethanol plants in New York and so the idea that you would have only one part of the country and the transportation cost would be quite expensive because of the way ethanol has to be transported, is no longer a factor. So, I happily support corn ethanol, all forms of ethanol, research for cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel.
Hillary continues talking about visits to plants that create biodiesel from things like animal fat which she says is great and she is in favor of before she is cut off. Earlier in the video, Hillary says "environment and energy" provide the perfect platform to bring together problem solving Americans. Political tap dancing or great local representation? Sound off in comments.
Related:
[Source: YouTube]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Wang 9:27PM (3/17/2009)
Speaking of Hillary Clinton:
There is bad news about her husband.
It is opined that Bill Clinton committed racist hate crimes, and I am not free to say anything further about it.
Respectfully Submitted by Andrew Y. Wang, J.D. Candidate
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
(I can type 90 words per minute, and there are probably thousands of copies on the Internet indicating the content of this post.)
_________________
“If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded.” Off the top of my head—it came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.
Reply
Domenick 1:10PM (11/07/2007)
She's kind of like a hybrid SUV from Ford disguised as a Mazda hoping no one will realize she's actually a Mercury. ^_^
Reply
Tim 1:17PM (11/07/2007)
So, she voted against it before she was for it? Where have I heard this before?
This life member of C.F.R is following in her husband’s footsteps by being so clearly ambiguous. At least she has now defined double speak for us!
Now, it the Clintons will only tell us what is actually is?
Reply
mpower 5:23PM (11/07/2007)
Clinton is beholden to the same agri-biz $$ subsidy lobby as her Dem/GOP colleagues in D.C. Her commentary here exposes 1) her lack of understanding per alternative energy, 2) and her full compliance with the taxpayer-subsidized interests that fund political campaigns.
In a nutshell, Clinton is a hack politician. How is she cruising toward nomination? After the '06 mid-term elections one could reasonably assume that Dem voters had a clue, yet Clinton (pro-war, pro-globalization) leads every poll by a wide margin... am I missing something?
mpower
Reply
vote for hillary online 2:42PM (11/07/2007)
I have a pro-Hillary website and I've had to hire more staff members because we couldn't keep up with the changing positions. I do think she is the candidate with the most integrity though, hopefully America wakes up.
http://www.voteforhillaryonline.com
Reply
HineyWipe 3:00PM (11/07/2007)
Next up at the house of Pancakes (known for their flippin), I voted for nuclear powerstations near grammar schools to help my constituents. And then passed some Loran to China to help their aim.
Hey look, a spammer! Way to go "vote for billary"
Reply
Some Dipshit 4:05PM (11/07/2007)
If you want to talk environmental flip flop, let's not forget about how George W prior to being elected president said that he thought CO2 was a greenhouse gas and then retracted that position once elected.
Reply
Tim 4:29PM (11/07/2007)
Some Dipshit- The Democrats and the Neocons are really all the same. They all love to pander to special interests using stolen tax money or fiat money created from thin air (Other People’s Money/debt) and they all hate the limitations placed on them by the US Constitution. Each of them has many more than 2 faces and they are lead to and fro by the latest political breeze. Politics should be a public service, and never a “lifestyle choice”.
Reply
rgseidl 5:23PM (11/07/2007)
She changed her position not because of any ideological position for or against biofuels but simply because NY state got a slice of the subsidies pie. It's called bringing home the bacon and it's what US politicians do all day long.
The logistics issue is non-trivial, though ethanol plants in NY state still have to use trucks and/or rail to ship their product to refineries elsewhere in the state for blending.
Reply
MikeW 7:13PM (11/07/2007)
Too many people are still watching the idiot box for far too many hours a day.
http://judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/10%20questions%20web.pdf
That spammer made me lauch, hillary=integrity. Maybe in some bizarro world.
Reply
Domenick 7:31PM (11/07/2007)
The vote for Hillary commenter is not exactly pro-Hillary.
Anyway, I'm sure she'll make a great republican co-president. Again.
Reply
Murc 7:47PM (11/07/2007)
*rolls eyes* what ever CNN's latest polls show, is what she's for. she is a pathetic presidential candidate.
Reply
John 8:44AM (11/08/2007)
I totally agree that Hillary is such a pathetic president candidate. In the last debate, she contradicted herself in different subjects, which is obvious in this video that compares her many contradictions at the same day: http://www.weshow.com/us/p/22225/the_politics_of_parsing_by_hillary_clinton
You guys that have watched the debate or this video that shows some of her many contradictions should agree with me that we just can't vote for a so clearly ambiguous candidate.
Reply
Alan 11:52AM (11/08/2007)
Intersting comments. Full disclosure-- I am very anti-Hillary on my blog.
You may want to consider particpating in a carnival on BlogCatalog.com by
posting on the topic
The Biggest Obstacle To Electing The Right Presidential Candidate
http://www.blogcatalog.com/group/skilled-political-debate/discuss/entry/the-bigge
st-obstace-to-electing-the-right-presidential-candidate
The topic would be a good fit for your blog and BC is planning to do a major PR
push for entries received by mid month.
For questions or to submit your post link to the carnival e-mail libdrone at
gmail dot com
Reply
studemax 9:52AM (11/08/2007)
If she told me it was night, I'd go outside to check.
Reply
len simpson 1:14PM (11/08/2007)
the saving grace of this long pre-election rat race is that there,s more time to observe the collective feet in mouths & realize they,re all just politicians,not a single statesman in the whole smelly pile.
Reply
JN 3:30PM (11/08/2007)
If she is really in favor of ethanol, then I say "welcome to the party." I've been supporting ethanol since the late '90s when I bought a Dodge Grand Caravan that ran on E85. I now have an '02 GC that runs on "corn juice," as my three-year-old son calls it, and I use it every chance I get. We just need to convince the gas stations and oil companies that it's not the evil that they would have us believe.
I don't like Hillary, but by God, this is one flip I can agree with. We ARE a problem-solving people, as she says, and we CAN produce our own fuels. We just have to come together and DO IT!
Reply
normanchodrick 6:47PM (11/08/2007)
I haven't seen a comment directed at the logic that mid-west ethanol would cause gas prices to be higher in NY. Can anyone suggest a train of logic that shows this might have indeed been the case? Since the logic behind this is not immediately apparent to me it tends to sound rather more like 'fake' logic to justify or explain a position. But then I am not familiar with the details that might be there either.
Reply
Lascelles Linton 7:20PM (11/08/2007)
Normanchodrick, It's logical to assume her logic is not immediately apparent to anyone :D
Reply
Helen 3:34PM (11/10/2007)
Was this video taken at Newton, IA? Has this video been taken down? Maybe Hillary! doesn't want evidence of her planted question(s) being online, perhaps?!
Reply