The Problem With Hillary Clinton Isn’t Just Her Corporate Cash. It’s Her Corporate Worldview.

[imagine2015]

The Problem With Hillary Clinton Isn’t Just Her Corporate Cash. It’s Her Corporate Worldview.
Clinton is uniquely unsuited to the epic task of confronting the fossil-fuel companies that profit from climate change.
By Naomi Klein
April 6, 2016

First, some facts. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, including her Super PAC, has received a lot of money from the employees and registered lobbyists of fossil-fuel companies. There’s the much-cited $4.5 million that Greenpeace calculated, which includes bundling by lobbyists.

But that’s not all. There is also a lot more money from sources not included in those calculations. For instance, one of Clinton’s most prominent and active financial backers is Warren Buffett. While he owns a large mix of assets, Buffett is up to his eyeballs in coal, including coal transportation and some of the dirtiest coal-fired power plants in the country.

While Clinton is great at warring with Republicans, taking on powerful corporations goes against her entire worldview, against everything she’s built, and everything she stands for. The real issue, in other words, isn’t Clinton’s corporate cash, it’s her deeply pro-corporate ideology: one that makes taking money from lobbyists and accepting exorbitant speech fees from banks seem so natural that the candidate is openly struggling to see why any of this has blown up at all.

At the center of it all is the canonical belief that change comes not by confronting the wealthy and powerful but by partnering with them. Viewed from within the logic of what Thomas Frank recently termed “the land of money,” all of Hillary Clinton’s most controversial actions make sense. Why not take money from fossil-fuel lobbyists? Why not get paid hundreds of thousands for speeches to Goldman Sachs? It’s not a conflict of interest; it’s a mutually beneficial partnership—part of a never-ending merry-go-round of corporate-political give and take.

Bernie Sanders’s campaign is built around precisely this logic: not the rich being stroked for a little more noblesse oblige, but ordinary citizens banding together to challenge them, winning tough regulations, and creating a much fairer system as a result.
Sanders and his supporters understand something critical: It won’t all be win-win. For any of this to happen, fossil-fuel companies, which have made obscene profits for many decades, will have to start losing. And losing more than just the tax breaks and subsidies that Clinton is promising to cut. They will also have to lose the new drilling and mining leases they want; they’ll have to be denied permits for the pipelines and export terminals they very much want to build. They will have to leave trillions of dollars’ worth of proven fossil-fuel reserves in the ground.

Meanwhile, if solar panels proliferate on rooftops, big power utilities will lose a significant portion of their profits, since their former customers will be in the energy-generation business. This would create opportunities for a more level economy and, ultimately, for lower utility bills—but once again, some powerful interests will have to lose (which is why Warren Buffett’s coal-fired utility in Nevada has gone to war against solar).

A president willing to inflict these losses on fossil-fuel companies and their allies needs to be more than just not actively corrupt. That president needs to be up for the fight of the century—and absolutely clear about which side must win. Looking at the Democratic primary, there can be no doubt about who is best suited to rise to this historic moment.

The good news? He just won Wisconsin.

Read the full article at: http://www.thenation.com/article/the-problem-with-hillary-clinton-isnt-just-her-corporate-cash-its-her-corporate-worldview/

Hillary Clinton and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein



HILLARY IS 'FIGHTING FOR US'

[Armstead]

1. Naomi Klein is so damn brilliant...Always hits the nail on the head

[lewebley3]

3. No she has her world view and its wrong for the Dem's

[Armstead]

5. No its wrong for the Republicans

It's totally on point for a party that is supposed to be the alternative and counterbalance to the GOP and their Wealthy and Powerful backers.

But I guess if you think the Democrats should be a mirror image of the GOP, you're correct.

[Beowulf]

7. Yes, damn brilliant!

Dismiss her at your (and unfortunately the rest of us, too) peril.

[lewebley3]

2. Hillary is world view is just fine: She is a loyal Dem: she believes in caring and sharing

Klein is an attacker for Sanders

[imagine2015]

8. Will Hillary be sharing some of her Wall Street loot with working people since she cares for us?

Just askin.

[lewebley3]

18. We don't have to ask those questions we already no: She raised taxes on the rich

with other Dem's, and helped pull 7.4 million people out of
poverty: Also 22m high playing jobs were created.

Hillary and Bill are running one of the most successful charity
in history: Their own personal money has gone to other
Dem's to help them get elected.

No, its clear Hillary will give all American's a seat at the
table of power.

When Hillary plays cards with the GOP: she will be playing
for all American just like FDR: both Clintons have work
hard to serve the American people.

[Yurovsky]

9. Yep, she & Wall Street are regular "Care Bears"...

try selling that nonsense to the millions of poor & working-class Americans suffering the consequences of the economy that she and her pals have rigged for the 1%...

[lewebley3]

35. Wall St is putting its money against Hillary_: rhe poor are voting with HIllary

[BillZBubb]

10. You've no doubt never read anything by Klein.

Otherwise you wouldn't make such an asinine statement.

Hillary believes in caring for the needs of the 1% and getting as much of their money as she can get her hands on. She's a money grubbing, corporatist phony.

[lewebley3]

20. Yes: I have: the Shock etc. Not impressed by book sales: She is wrong

about Hillary: Cuz is smart and wrong too!

[PyaarRevolution]

11. Why don't you just call...?

Jeremy Scahill or Nomi Prins hacks? Or Glenn Greenwald? They are superb journalists and national treasures, calling any one of them simply "An attacker for Sanders" really diminishes the quality of their professional body of work.

[lewebley3]

21. These people are superb to you not to others: if they are great: them being

Last edited Sat Apr 9, 2016, 03:37 PM - Edit history (1)

wrong about Hillary just makes me respect them less.

[Beowulf]

12. This is funny.

Hillary's world view includes admiration for Henry Kissinger, pointless, destructive regime change, and deporting political refugee children to certain death.

[lewebley3]

28. I don't think you know what a world views is: Hillary was a Dem hippy during Nixon's

time: Kissinger is not of Hillary's time: she has good manners: and
learns from everyone.

[quantumjunkie]

37. ...and Hillary was a proud Goldwater Girl

campaigning for a racist

[pangaia]

15. Oh, Jerusalem!

[Betty Karlson]

17. Loyal Dems vote to give king George a blank check for real-life stratego in Iraq?

Loyal Dems support DOMA and DADT for as long as electably possible?

Loyal Dems take cash and advice from payday-lenders and for-profit prisons?

Loyal Dems rake in cash from Goldman Sachs?

Loyal Dems sell fracking to the world?

Loyal Dems call TPP a "golden standard" for as long as electably possible?

Loyal Dems praise the Panama trade deal that allows (to this day) the 1 % to avoid taxes?

----

Just because the truth hurts, it doesn't constitute an attack. Just like white blood-cells don't "attack" viruses and bacterias, they merely DEFEND the body from worse harm.

[lewebley3]

19. Hillary is a beloved elected leader: because she has been successful

in leading the fight against the GOP. Hillary is a commoner: but
she is an heir to FDR .

FDR had money on Wall St.: didn't stop him from serving
the interest of the Dem party as well as the American people.

Sanders problem is that he is only about him! Not the Dem party:
or other American's outside of rich white kids wanting free college.

[Betty Karlson]

22. You lost me at "beloved": 57 % of the voters don't trust her.

She is a follower, not a leader, and I don't trust the ones she follows.

[lewebley3]

29. They trust her enough make her President: She is not running for a church position

[Betty Karlson]

39. Is that why she is hemorrhaging support, losing 7 out of the last 8 states?

Just because most progressives are still willing to vote for the lesser of two evils, they don't actually support evil. Your argument is detached from reality. Reality is that 57 % of the voters thoroughly distrusts Clinton, and that she would be the first candidate to be elected president with such a dismal rating.

[imagine2015]

23. Is that the latest talking point? Just about rich white kids wanting free college?

More nonsense.

[lewebley3]

25. Just the truth: without the free college most of young people won't have anything to do

with him.

[Splinter Cell]

34. What are you smokin'?

And in what states is it legal?

[Juicy_Bellows]

38. Caramel kush and Oregon. Erm, wait?

Sorry, just felt like chiming in!

[G_j]

4. this is an essential point

worth some serious discussion.

[CentralCoaster]

6. Her behavior is simply vulgar. And her dimissive behavior toward these things even worse. nt

[BillZBubb]

13. Rec'd

[Betty Karlson]

14. Hat of to Ms Klein.

[pangaia]

16. NK is a world treasure.

Krkrkr

[BernieforPres2016]

24. Naomi Klein is right about kindly old Uncle Warren Buffett

I used to be a disciple of his as an investor in the days he railed against excessive executive compensation and other issues in his annual letters to shareholders, and sometimes in magazine articles or interviews. In the years prior to the financial crisis I began to regard him as a sellout (more likely he always had been and I was blind to it). He became much friendlier with and much more of an apologist for Wall Street; and he capitalized on his connections and reputation to make big returns with sweetheart deals in companies like Goldman Sachs and GE during the financial crisis.

I think it was in the early 2000's when Buffett's company Berkshire Hathaway (which he has a huge personal stake in) bought about 20% of the common stock of Burlington Northern (one of the handful of major railroads that dominate the U.S. and Canada). A few years later, Berkshire Hathaway bought Burlington Northern entirely and it became what I'm pretty sure is their largest operating entity. Shipping coal is a huge business for Burlington.

Berkshire Hathaway also has huge stakes in TBTF bank and TARP recipient Wells Fargo, TARP recipient American Express, and the government sanctioned oligopoly credit rating agency Moody's, which in my view should have been put out of business for enabling the explosion in subprime mortgage backed securities by lowering its rating standards and effectively selling its Aaa ratings for larger than normal fees. There should have been criminal prosecutions of executives and mid level employees at Moody's:

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/06/01/warren-buffett-to-break-his-silence-about-moodys/

<Warren Buffett usually loves talking about his investments — both the successful ones and his few flops.

But Buffett’s relationship with Moody’s Investment Services is unusual. The CEO of Berkshire Hathaway has said very little about his 13% stake in the rating firm, which has come under heavy fire for its role in the financial crisis. You know the complaints by now: That Moody’s and rivals S&P and Fitch negligently inflated ratings on mortgage securities, as they grew ever keener to win business from Wall Street banks and other underwriters.

But through it all, Buffet has said bupkes. For instance, has not weighed in on the multiple proposals to reform ratings firms, including a recent bill sponsored by Sen. Al Franken, which would put a government committee in charge of selecting the raters. Nor has he addressed the inherent conflicts in the ratings industry’s business model, in which the ratings firms are being paid by the companies that hire them to provide impartial ratings. Buffett has often sounded off on similar conflicts.

Like it or not, Buffett will have his chance tomorrow when he testifies before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission along side Moody’s CEO.>

[Agony]

31. Buffett owns 3/4 billion dollars of Suncor prime developer of Canadian Tar Sands

that Hillary doesn't repudiate him as a major supporter reveals the bad judgement that disqualifies her as a credible leader with respect to Climate Change. Also explains why she refused for so long to make the right decision and call for denying the permitting of Keystone XL. Following the money reliably explains Clintonian bad policy judgement and decision making. Some of the money that Buffett donates to Clinton comes from profiting from Tar Sands development, she can't run from that unless she returns it to him.

http://www.suncor.com/~/media/Images/Suncordotcom/Formatted-Banners/hands-cradling-bitumen-672x300.ashx?h=300&w=672&la=en-CA&hash=00ABA4972195F6126F8A61D3B033E4A19DAC4B07

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3803506-warren-buffett-owns-suncor-3_7-percent-dividend-yield

[BernieforPres2016]

33. A $750 million investment is probably made by one of the 2 guys Buffett hired years ago

Most investments Buffett makes himself are in the billions. He hired a couple of younger guys 10 or so years ago to manage chunks of Berkshire's money with the idea that one or both of them would manage Berkshire's investment portfolio after Buffett is gone. If they are investing in tar sands, apparently Buffett didn't put any constraints on them other than to try to make money. Wall Street, coal, tar sands, Buffett doesn't care. The only thing I can recall him saying he wouldn't invest in was tobacco.

Hillary and Bill have raked in big speaking fees as well as campaign contributions from companies with interests in the Keystone XL pipeline.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel_us_55a8335ee4b04740a3df86c5

<Bundler Gordon Giffin is a former lobbyist for TransCanada, the company working to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Giffin sits on the board of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, an investor in the pipeline. The Canadian bank paid Clinton $990,000 for speeches in the months leading up to her presidential announcement. Another Canadian financial institution with an interest in Keystone XL, TD Bank, paid her $651,000 for speaking engagements.

Clinton’s position on Keystone XL — or lack thereof — may prove the biggest challenge for her in gaining support from progressive activists. Whether to grant a permit for the leg of the pipeline that crosses the Canadian border into the U.S. is up to the State Department, which has been considering it since Clinton’s time as secretary of state. In October 2010 remarks, Clinton said the department was “inclined” to sign off on the pipeline, a statement that enraged environmental groups working to stop it. On the campaign trail, Clinton has largely evaded questions about the pipeline.

But the issue has dogged Clinton. The speaking fees from Canadian banks came to light in May. In June, Clinton’s campaign announced the hiring of former TransCanada lobbyist Jeff Berman as a consultant.>

[cantbeserious]

26. HRC - Duplicity Is As Duplicity Does

eom

[Avalon Sparks]

27. The Truth

It’s important not to lose sight of the one truth she’s been telling, and will continue to tell, the voters: things will not get better. Ever.

The American ruling class has been trying to figure out for years, if not decades, how to manage decline, how to get Americans to get used to diminished expectations, how to adapt to the notion that life for the next generation will be worse than for the previous generation, and now, how to accept low to zero growth rates as the new economic normal. Clinton’s campaign message isn’t just for Bernie voters; it’s for everyone.

When the leading candidate of the more left of the two parties is saying that – and getting the majority of its voters to embrace that message – the work of the American ruling class is done.

[stillwaiting]

30. She clearly welcomes their hatred.

Or not.

And we must have someone that will fight them not be their advocate.

[Avalon Sparks]

32. The problem is her Integrity - Meaning she has none.

[quantumjunkie]

36. No Hillary Supporter will read this. Facts be damned

[Avalon Sparks]

40. Still no comments from Hillary supporters

[Uncle Joe]

41. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, imagine2015.

[azmom]

42. Kick