Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Showing Original Post only (View all)The Problem With Hillary Clinton Isn’t Just Her Corporate Cash. It’s Her Corporate Worldview. [View all]
The Problem With Hillary Clinton Isnt Just Her Corporate Cash. Its 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 Clintons campaign, including her Super PAC, has received a lot of money from the employees and registered lobbyists of fossil-fuel companies. Theres the much-cited $4.5 million that Greenpeace calculated, which includes bundling by lobbyists.
But thats not all. There is also a lot more money from sources not included in those calculations. For instance, one of Clintons 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 shes built, and everything she stands for. The real issue, in other words, isnt Clintons corporate cash, its 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 Clintons 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? Its not a conflict of interest; its a mutually beneficial partnershippart of a never-ending merry-go-round of corporate-political give and take.
Bernie Sanderss 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 wont 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; theyll 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 billsbut once again, some powerful interests will have to lose (which is why Warren Buffetts 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 centuryand 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/
But thats not all. There is also a lot more money from sources not included in those calculations. For instance, one of Clintons 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 shes built, and everything she stands for. The real issue, in other words, isnt Clintons corporate cash, its 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 Clintons 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? Its not a conflict of interest; its a mutually beneficial partnershippart of a never-ending merry-go-round of corporate-political give and take.
Bernie Sanderss 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 wont 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; theyll 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 billsbut once again, some powerful interests will have to lose (which is why Warren Buffetts 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 centuryand 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.
Hillary Clinton and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein
HILLARY IS 'FIGHTING FOR US'
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
42 replies, 1854 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (37)
ReplyReply to this post
42 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Problem With Hillary Clinton Isn’t Just Her Corporate Cash. It’s Her Corporate Worldview. [View all]
imagine2015
Apr 2016
OP
Hillary is world view is just fine: She is a loyal Dem: she believes in caring and sharing
lewebley3
Apr 2016
#2
Will Hillary be sharing some of her Wall Street loot with working people since she cares for us?
imagine2015
Apr 2016
#8
We don't have to ask those questions we already no: She raised taxes on the rich
lewebley3
Apr 2016
#18
Wall St is putting its money against Hillary_: rhe poor are voting with HIllary
lewebley3
Apr 2016
#35
I don't think you know what a world views is: Hillary was a Dem hippy during Nixon's
lewebley3
Apr 2016
#28
Loyal Dems vote to give king George a blank check for real-life stratego in Iraq?
Betty Karlson
Apr 2016
#17
They trust her enough make her President: She is not running for a church position
lewebley3
Apr 2016
#29
Is that why she is hemorrhaging support, losing 7 out of the last 8 states?
Betty Karlson
Apr 2016
#39
Is that the latest talking point? Just about rich white kids wanting free college?
imagine2015
Apr 2016
#23
Just the truth: without the free college most of young people won't have anything to do
lewebley3
Apr 2016
#25
Her behavior is simply vulgar. And her dimissive behavior toward these things even worse. nt
CentralCoaster
Apr 2016
#6
A $750 million investment is probably made by one of the 2 guys Buffett hired years ago
BernieforPres2016
Apr 2016
#33