obama And clinton Liberals?

[Windship]

Really... Ok, show me. Prove to me their liberals. What have they done to classify in that arena?

 

[Windship]

The Shocking Truth About Who Wrote Obamacare
Dave Hodges

December 2, 2013

The Common Sense Show



The Shocking Truth About Who Wrote Obamacare



“You know how I define the economic & social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there just to scare the crap out of the middle class. Keep em showing up at those jobs.”

George Carlin

If this article does not convince you that the Obama administration is nothing but a criminal enterprise organization, nothing will.

“If you like your plan, you can keep your plan”. Do you remember these famous lies coming from the disingenuous mouth of Obama with regard to the snow job he perpetrated upon the American people? Many Americans were willing to give Obamacare a chance because Americans are a generous people and we did not like the fact that greedy managed care companies were making it impossible for 50 million Americans to get affordable health care. We now know this was a major lie because as many as 16 million Americans are losing their healthcare because their present plans do not meet the new standards of Obamacare.

http://thecommonsenseshow.com/siteu...ike-your-health-care-plan-you-can-keep-it.png


We Told You So
I wrote articles on this site which warned about the fine print of Obamacare. There are few things more annoying than hearing the words “I told you so”. However, I cannot fight the temptation to tell you, “I told you so”.

Most people now know, or have the means to find out that Obamacare does indeed have death panels in which major age related treatment exclusions are written into the law. Many of us are finding out that Obamacare will be significantly more expensive than our present healthcare plans. For myself, if I had to go on Obamacare, I would pay almost three times as much per month as I am now.

We are now learning that as doctors are finding out about Obamacare, that many of these doctors are planning to retire early and leave the profession. This will result in a severe healthcare provider shortage. Don’t you remember when George H. W. Bush was fighting on behalf of the managed care plans when he talked about long waits for critical treatments involving countries which had socialized medicine such as Canada?

With the critical shortages coming to Obamacare, many Americans are going to die while waiting for treatment and this problem is going to be greatly exacerbated by the shortages which are looming in specialty treatment areas. Under Obamacare, general practitioners (GP’s) will, in most cases, get paid the same as specialists. Medical specialists (e.g. cardiologists) spend a lot more time and money than GP’s in order to acquire the skill sets associated with their specialty field. In the future, why should specialists spend the extra time and money getting trained for a specialty field if it pays the same as a GP? As a result, many are predicting critical shortages in specialized critical medical fields such as oncology, cardiac specialists, pulmonary specialists, OBGYN specialists, et al. As a result of Obamacare, people are going die prematurely and we told you so!


Does the Congressional health care plan contain access to botox treatments?

Who is responsible for the madness that is emerging out of Obamacare? At the time Obamacare was passed, it was impossible for most Americans to tell you what was in the plan and, most of all, who was responsible for writing the plan. Don’t you remember when Nancy Pelosi commanded Congress to pass the healthcare so that we could see what was in it?

Who Actually Wrote Obamacare?
And now for the shocking truth about who actually wrote Obamacare. After all the secrecy surrounding Obamacare is lifting, we can finally put a name to this cruel lie. The man’s name who wrote a great deal of the scourge that we call Obamacare, is convicted felon, Robert Creamer.

Creamer is now credited for writing 628 pages of Obamacare while he was in prison. Creamer is a senior Democratic operative who defrauded banks in order to keep his Marxist/Communist community organization afloat by engaging in 16 counts of bank and tax fraud. Creamer’s book is entitled, Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win.

Many left-wingers say that Creamer’s book has inspired them in their progressive fight to turn America into socialist Europe. Creamer’s work has received support and garnered an endorsement from a surprising source. Or, maybe it is not so surprising after all. Former White House Senior Adviser, David Axelrod, described Creamer’s book as a “blueprint” for future progressive victories. Creamer has stated that in order to impose socialist healthcare on an unwilling nation, it is necessary to deceive the people.


The perfect Marxist couple, the convicted criminal, Robert Creamer, and his wife the Congresswoman, Marxist, Jan Schakowsky.

Creamer is the husband of Marxist Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat who demands a “single payer” healthcare delivery system. Creamer’s book calls for the “democratization of wealth”, and the “progressive control of governments around the world”.

Creamer says that Democrats could win a permanent majority in Congress “by passing a national health care bill, turning more people into wards of government, that works to grow government; and by giving amnesty to all illegals, thereby creating, virtually overnight, a large new constituency of Democratic voters”. With 50% of the country on some form of welfare, Creamer’s plan has progressed at a very rapid pace.

Creamer counseled Democrats that to win complete control of America, they must “not just generate understanding, but emotion—fear, revulsion, anger, disgust”. He adds, “If the Democrats continue to stand firmly for immigrant rights, the issue will define immigrants’ voting loyalties for a generation. If we’re successful, we’ll have a gigantic block of progressive votes over the next 15 years, a block that could be decisive in the battle for the future.”


Conclusion
I would really like to sell the American people a used car. And while we are at it, I would like to sell our fellow countrymen some swamp land in Florida. For the people in this country to have elected a communist such as Jan Schakowsky is truly mind boggling. For the citizens of this country to have allowed the passage of Obamacare without any knowledge of what was in the bill and who wrote the bill, makes me think that the majority of the citizens of this country are dumber than a box of rocks.

We have met the enemy and he is us. Cheers! Here is to your good health, America.

 

[Windship]

forget THAT one. Its written for and by the health insurance co's.

 

[esthermoon]

They've done nothing to be called "liberals".
Liberal is just a word. They're just two politicians and they only want power like almost all politicians nowadays!

 

[Windship]

9 Campaign Promises That Obama Has Broken

 

[Windship]

9 Campaign Promises That Obama Has Broken

 

[Fenton Lum]

Really... Ok, show me. Prove to me their liberals. What have they done to classify in that arena?

The last "liberal" administration was Nixon's.

 

[Windship]

THE WIRE


Obama White House ‘Full of Wall Street Executives’?

• By Eugene Kiely
• Posted on February 29, 2012 | Corrected on March 1, 2012

71

A conservative group exaggerates the number of “Wall Street executives” in the Obama White House. In a major TV ad buy, the American Future Fund lists 27 people it claims are part of “Obama’s Wall Street Inner Circle.” But the ad is either flat wrong or greatly exaggerated in more than half of those cases. Among the most laughable examples we found of “Wall Street executives” in Obama’s “inner circle”:

• A “White House fellow,” class of 2009-2010, who served in the Department of Defense, not the White House.
• Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who never worked for Goldman Sachs (as the ad falsely claims) or any other Wall Street firm.
• Two men who were appointed by President George W. Bush, and who left not long after Obama took office.
• Two men who never worked in the administration — including the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who was selected by the New York Fed’s board of directors (the majority of whom are appointed by member banks).
• Two others who never worked for any Wall Street firm until after leaving the Obama administration.

It’s true that Obama raised a record amount of money from Wall Street for his 2008 presidential campaign, as the ad says. But Obama has had a rocky relationship with Wall Street executives since taking office — especially since signing legislation in the summer of 2010 that imposed tougher regulations on the industry.

The Geithner Myth and Other Exaggerations

American Future Fund, a 501(c)(4), announced Feb. 27 that it would spend nearly $4 million in nine states on a TV ad titled “Obama’s Wall Street.” It opens with a clip of Obama saying, “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street.”

The ad then mocks those words with two facts that, while accurate, can use some context:

• The ad correctly states that Obama’s 2008 campaign received $42 million — “more than any other candidate in history” — from “Wall Street bankers and financial insiders.” The ad cites an analysis of campaign finance data by the Center for Responsive Politics, which reported that Obama’s campaign raised $42.2 million from the “finance, insurance and real estate” sector. That’s up from the $35.9 million that Bush raised for reelection in 2004. Even when adjusted for inflation, Obama still raised more than Bush, although the gap is smaller: $42.2 million to $41 million.
• The ad also correctly says that Obama, as a senator, voted for the Wall Street bailout in 2008. So did 73 of the other 99 senators — including Sen. John McCain, who was Obama’s opponent in the 2008 presidential campaign. The ad also fails to mention that Bush proposed the bailout and his administration lobbied for it.

The ad veers sharply from the truth when it claims Obama’s “White House is full of Wall Street executives.” The viewer is shown photos of seven people to support this claim — but more than half of them are bogus examples. One of them never worked as an investment banker (Geithner); two of them have resumes that fall far short of being “Wall Street executives” (Rahm Emanuel and Louis Caldera); and one was not part of the White House (Jon Corzine).

The most blatantly false example is Geithner, who is pictured along with the words “Goldman Sachs” and “$1.7 million estimate of assets.” Despite a popular myth circulated on the Internet, Geithner never worked for Goldman Sachs. The New York Times wrote an article about how often this rumor has been misstated as fact, including in the venerableWashington Post.

Geithner, who was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York before joining the administration, had this comical exchange with Damon Silvers, deputy chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP, at an April 21, 2009, hearing:

Silvers: All right. Let me stop you right there. What I don’t get–and I practice law, and you have been in banking — is a deal where —

Geithner: Actually–I have never actually been in banking. I have only been in public service.

Silvers: Well, a long time ago. A long time.

Geithner: Actually never.

Silvers: Investment banking I meant.

Geithner: Never investment banking. Spent my entire life in public service in the Treasury and at the Federal Reserve.

Silvers: Well, all right. Very well then.

In addition to Geithner, the TV ad stretches the truth by including photos of:

• Rahm Emanuel, the president’s first chief of staff. It’s true, as the ad notes under his photo, that Emanuel reaped $16 million while working as an investment banker for Wasserstein Perella. But he worked there two and a half years. He spent nearly his entire professional life in politics and government. As Politico wrote, Emanuel worked on Paul Simon’s 1984 election to the U.S. Senate, served as a senior adviser and chief fundraiser for Richard M. Daley in 1989, and became a senior adviser to President Clinton in the 1990s. He was also a member of Congress from Illinois, and he is now the mayor of Chicago.
• Louis Caldera, former director of the White House Military Office. It’s true that Caldera was a member of the board of directors for IndyMac Bancorp for six years, leaving in August 2008. Many public officials serve on the boards of major corporations. But his career has been in government and academia. He was a California assemblyman (1992-1997), chief operating officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service (1997 to 1998), U.S. Army secretary under Clinton (1998-2001), and president of the University of New Mexico (2003-2006). Prior to his appointment, Caldera was a law professor at the University of New Mexico. He is now vice president of programs at the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation.
• Jon Corzine, an ex-chief executive at Goldman Sachs and former New Jersey governor. Corzine is a true Wall Street executive, but the TV ad goes too far in claiming Corzine was “Obama’s adviser on the stimulus.” Corzine, who endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2008, was one of several people consulted by Obama’s campaign on the economy during the general election. But in 2009, Corzine was preoccupied with reelection, which he lost. Obama’s economic team was headed by Geithner and included Christina Romer, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, and Lawrence Summers, director of the National Economic Council. Romer, Summers and Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, were the main players in shaping the stimulus bill, as detailed by the New Yorker magazine.

Padding ‘Wall Street Inner Circle’ List

While the ad’s narrator focuses on these seven “Wall Street executives,” the names of 27 people scroll up the screen under the header of “Obama’s Wall Street Inner Circle.” It’s supposed to read like a Hall of Shame. But we found 14 of those names don’t belong on the list — including, as mentioned above, Geithner, Emanuel and Caldera.

Other names used to improperly pad the list include two Bush appointees: Stephen Friedman and Neel Kashkari, both former Goldman Sachs executives.

Bush appointed Friedman to the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board in 2001. He became chairman in 2006 and served until 2009. Likewise, Kashkari was the interim assistant Treasury secretary for financial stability under Bush. Kashkari had been “in charge of staffing TARP and helping to structure the government’s investments,” as the Wall Street Journal reported. He was asked by the Obama administration to stay in his position for a limited time after the inauguration, and he resigned in May 2009. He now works at PIMCO.

Others who don’t belong on the list are two men who never worked in the Obama administration: William Dudley and Adam Storch.

Dudley, a former chief economist at Goldman Sachs, replaced Geithner at the New York Fed. He was selected by the New York Fed’s board of directors after a two-month search by an outside firm. Storch went from Goldman Sachs to the Securities and Exchange Commission, where he works in the Division of Enforcement. Obama did appoint the SEC chairwoman, Mary Schapiro, but the agency itself was responsible for Storch’s hiring.

Then there is the curious case of Emil Michael — a White House fellow, class of 2009-2010. This supposed member of the president’s “inner circle” didn’t even work at the White House. His assignment was at the Pentagon. He was just one of 13 fellows selected for a one-year stint in government. Very few of the fellows actually work in the Executive Office of the President.

One true insider on the list — but not a Wall Street executive — is former White House counsel Gregory Craig. After leaving the administration, Craig joined the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in January 2010, and one of his clients is Goldman Sachs. He’s a lawyer, not a Wall Street executive. Prior to working at the White House, Craig was a partner in the high-powered Washington law firm of Williams and Connolly.

So, that means Craig was retroactively made a member of Obama’s Wall Street inner circle — as was Peter Orszag, the former White House budget director.

Orszag had no Wall Street experience before joining Citigroup after he left the administration. His background is in government and public policy. Prior to joining the White House, Orszag headed the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (January 2007-November 2008) and was an economist at the Brookings Institution (2001-2007).

As with Emanuel and Caldera, there were a few others on AFF’s “Wall Street inner circle” list who made their careers in government or academia — not Wall Street. They include:

• Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, whose lengthy government resume includes being a congressional aide, a California congressman and a former chief of staff to Bill Clinton. He makes the list based on his six years serving on the New York Stock Exchange board of directors.
• Larry Summers, a former Harvard University president who served as treasurer under President Clinton. Summers, who headed Obama’s National Economic Council, wasmanaging director of the hedge fund D.E. Shaw after he stepped down as president of Harvard University in 2006. But he spent nearly his entire professional life in government or academia.
• Diana Farrell, who worked under Summers at the National Economic Council. She worked just two years for Goldman Sachs in the late 1980s, from 1987 to 1989. Most of her career has been at the management consultant firm of McKinsey & Company, serving as the director of its research arm, McKinsey Global Institute. She was the institute’sdirector from 2002-2008.
• Karen Kornbluh, who makes the list because she briefly worked about 20 years ago as an economist at Townsend-Greenspan & Co., where she started as an intern. Herbackground is almost exclusively in government. A graduate of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, Kornbluh has worked for Sen. John Kerry (1991-1994), the Federal Communications Commission (1995-1997), the Treasury Department (as a deputy chief of staff in the Clinton administration) and for Obama (2004-2008). She is now the U.S. ambassador to OECD.

The ad wraps up by saying “Wall Street sure supports President Obama.” It includes a headline from a Washington Post story to show that Obama is continuing to raise big money from Wall State execs despite the new Wall Street regulations. The Post story was based on combined fundraising by the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee. But as the story also noted, “Obama’s [fundraising] numbers look much worse” compared with Republican Mitt Romney when the DNC funds are not included. That’s still the case. Center for Responsive Politics data show Romney has received $12.5 million from those in the finance, insurance and real estate sector — more than double Obama’s take of $5.2 million.

Certainly, the American Future Fund has a point about the massive amounts of money the Obama campaign raised in 2008 from Wall Street executives. The jury is still out, though, as to whether such executives will support him more than the Republican nominee.

For sure, Obama has hired some Wall Street executives to serve in the White House — including White House budget director Jacob Lew (Citigroup) and former chief of staffWilliam Daley (J.P. Morgan Chase). He also has appointed some long-time investment bankers — including ex-Goldman Sachs executives Gary Gensler, who chairs the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and Phil Murphy, U.S. ambassador to Germany. But in its zeal to build its case against Obama, American Future Fund strains credibility by padding its list of “Obama’s Wall Street Inner Circle” with a majority of people who don’t belong.

— Eugene Kiely, with Scott Blackburn, Lalita Clozel and Dave Bloom

Correction, March 1: In our original report, we misidentified the position Adam Storch holds in the SEC. His title is managing executive of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. He reports to Robert Khuzami, the director of the division. We also originally said the ad was from a political action committee, but it is sponsored by American Future Fund, a 501(c)(4), not the group’s PAC.

 

[Windship]

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 KleinTwitter​

APRIL 6, 2016​

• Facebook​
• Twitter​
• Email​
• Print​

Hillary Clinton and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein at the Clinton Global Initiative in 2014.(Reuters / Shannon Stapleton)
​

T​

here aren’t a lot of certainties left in the US presidential race, but here’s one thing about which we can be absolutely sure: The Clinton camp reallydoesn’t like talking about fossil-fuel money. Last week, when a young Greenpeace campaigner challenged Hillary Clinton about taking money from fossil-fuel companies, the candidate accused the Bernie Sanders campaign of “lying” and declared herself “so sick” of it. As the exchange went viral, a succession of high-powered Clinton supporters pronounced that there was nothing to see here and that everyone should move along.
The very suggestion that taking this money could impact Clinton’s actions is “baseless and should stop,” according to California Senator Barbara Boxer. It’s “flat-out false,” “inappropriate,” and doesn’t “hold water,” declared New York Mayor Bill de Blasio. New York Timescolumnist Paul Krugman went so far as to issue “guidelines for good and bad behavior” for the Sanders camp. The first guideline? Cut out the “innuendo suggesting, without evidence, that Clinton is corrupt.”
That’s a whole lot of firepower to slap down a non-issue. So is it an issue or not?
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.

One of Clinton’s most active financial backers is Warren Buffett, who is up to his eyeballs in coal.​

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.
Then there’s all the cash that fossil-fuel companies have directly pumped into the Clinton Foundation. In recent years, Exxon, Shell, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron have all contributed to the foundation. An investigation in theInternational Business Times just revealed that at least two of these oil companies were part of an effort to lobby Clinton’s State Department about the Alberta tar sands, a massive deposit of extra-dirty oil. Leading climate scientists like James Hansen have explained that if we don’t keep the vast majority of that carbon in the ground, we will unleash catastrophic levels of warming.
During this period, the investigation found, Clinton’s State Department approved the Alberta Clipper, a controversial pipeline carrying large amounts of tar-sands bitumen from Alberta to Wisconsin. “According to federal lobbying records reviewed by the IBT,” write David Sirota and Ned Resnikoff, “Chevron and ConocoPhillips both lobbied the State Department specifically on the issue of ‘oil sands’ in the immediate months prior to the department’s approval, as did a trade association funded by ExxonMobil.”

LIKE THIS? GET MORE OF OUR BEST REPORTING AND ANALYSIS

​

Did the donations to the Clinton Foundation have anything to do with the State Department’s pipeline decision? Did they make Hillary Clinton more disposed to seeing tar-sands pipelines as environmentally benign, as early State Department reviews of Keystone XLseemed to conclude, despite the many scientific warnings? There is no proof—no “smoking gun,” as Clinton defenders like to say. Just as there is no proof that the money her campaign took from gas lobbyists and fracking financiers has shaped Clinton’s current (and dangerous) view that fracking can be made safe.
It’s important to recognize that Clinton’s campaign platform includes some very good climate policies that surely do not please these donors—which is why the fossil-fuel sector gives so much more to climate change–denying Republicans.
Still, the whole funding mess stinks, and it seems to get worse by the day. So it’s very good that the Sanders camp isn’t abiding by Krugman’s “guidelines for good behavior” and shutting up about the money in a year when climate change has contributed to the hottest temperatures since records began. This primary isn’t over, and Democratic voters need and deserve to know all they can before they make a choice we will all have to live with for a very long time.
Eva Resnick-Day, the 26-year-old Greenpeace activist who elicited the “so sick” response from Clinton last week, has a very lucid and moving perspective on just how fateful this election is, how much hangs in the balance. Responding to Clinton’s claim that young people “don’t do their own research,” Resnick-Day told Democracy Now!:

As a youth movement, we have done our own research, and that is why we are so terrified for the future…. Scientists are saying that we have half the amount of time that we thought we did to tackle climate change before we go over the tipping point. And because of that, youth—the people that are going to have to inherit and deal with this problem—are incredibly worried. What happens in the next four or eight years could determine the future of our planet and the human species. And that’s why we’re out there…asking the tough questions to all candidates: to make sure that whoever is in office isn’t going to continue things as they’ve been, but take a real stand to tackle climate change in a meaningful and deep way for the future of our planet.​

Resnick-Day’s words cut to the heart of why this is not just another election cycle, and why Clinton’s web of corporate entanglements is deeply alarming with or without a “smoking gun.” Whoever wins in November, the next president will come into office with their back up against the climate wall. Put simply, we are just plain out of time. As Resnick-Day correctly states, everything is moving faster than the scientific modeling has prepared us for. The ice is melting faster. The oceans are rising faster.
And that means that governments must move much faster too. The latest peer-reviewed science tells us that if we want a good shot at protecting coastal cities this century —including New York, the place where Bernie and Hillary are currently having it out—then we need to get off fossil fuels with superhuman speed. A new paper from Oxford University, published in the journal Applied Energy, concludes that for humanity to have a 50-50 chance of meeting the temperature targets set in Paris, every new power plant has to be zero-carbon starting next year.
That is hard. Really hard. At a bare minimum, it requires a willingness to go head-to-head with the two most powerful industries on the planet—fossil-fuel companies and the banks that finance them. Hillary Clinton is uniquely unsuited to this epic task.

The real issue is not Clinton’s corporate cash; it’s her deeply pro-corporate ideology. ​

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.
To understand this worldview, one need look no further than the foundation at which Hillary Clinton works and which bears her family name. The mission of the Clinton Foundation can be distilled as follows: There is so much private wealth sloshing around our planet (thanks in very large part to the deregulation and privatization frenzy that Bill Clinton unleashed on the world while president), that every single problem on earth, no matter how large, can be solved by convincing the ultra-rich to do the right things with their loose change. Naturally, the people to convince them to do these fine things are the Clintons, the ultimate relationship brokers and dealmakers, with the help of an entourage of A-list celebrities.
So let’s forget the smoking guns for the moment. The problem with Clinton World is structural. It’s the way in which these profoundly enmeshed relationships—lubricated by the exchange of money, favors, status, and media attention—shape what gets proposed as policy in the first place.
For instance, under the Clintons’ guidance, drug companies work with the foundation to knock down their prices in Africa (conveniently avoiding the real solution: changing the system of patenting that allows them to charge such grotesque prices to the poor in the first place). The Dow Chemical Company finances water projects in India (just don’t mention their connection to theongoing human health disaster in Bhopal, for which the company still refuses to take responsibility). And it was at the Clinton Global Initiative that airline mogul Richard Branson made his flashy pledge to spend billions solving climate change (almost a decade later, we’re still waiting, while Virgin Airlines keeps expanding).
In Clinton World it’s always win-win-win: The governments look effective, the corporations look righteous, and the celebrities look serious. Oh, and another win too: The Clintons grow ever more powerful.

At the center of it all is the belief that change comes not by confronting the wealthy, but by partnering with them.​

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.
Books have been filled with the failures of Clinton-style philanthrocapitalism. When it comes to climate change, we have all the evidence we need to know that this model is a disaster on a planetary scale. This is the logic that gave the world fraud-infested carbon markets and dodgy carbon offsets instead of tough regulation of polluters—because, we were told, emission reductions needed to be “win-win” and “market-friendly.”
If the next president wastes any more time with these schemes, the climate clock will run out, plain and simple. If we’re to have any hope of avoiding catastrophe, action needs to be unprecedented in its speed and scope. If designed properly, the transition to a post-carbon economy can deliver a great many “wins”: not just a safer future, but huge numbers of well-paying jobs; improved and affordable public transit; more liveable cities; as well as racial and environmental justice for the communities on the frontlines of dirty extraction.
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.​

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. And he isn’t following anyone’s guidelines for good behavior.

 

[TooTall]

Really... Ok, show me. Prove to me their liberals. What have they done to classify in that arena?

Allowing men who can pretend to be women go into women's bathrooms seems rather liberal to me.

 

[Windship]

clinton also sat on the board of wal mart.

 

[Windship]

Really... Ok, show me. Prove to me their liberals. What have they done to classify in that arena?

Allowing men who can pretend to be women go into women's bathrooms seems rather liberal to me.

Lol. Dont wonder why Democracy is dying...there is the answer.

 

[Windship]

change your name to "too stupid"

 

[TooTall]

change your name to "too stupid"

I guess you consider men who pretend to be women to visit women's bathrooms a conservative position.