Home | About | Donate

Naomi Klein Explains Why Clinton's "Corporate Worldview" Cannot Be Ignored



Good article by Naomi Klein.

Just how bad would a HRC president be? To me, Trump is the lesser evil!


Hillary, listen. Getting all up in the grill of that climate activist seemed to backfire on us. Try laughing like an idiot next time. That should work.


Naomi Klein fails to explains to explain why according to her:"corporate worldview":thesis that Clinton wrote legislation to end subsidies to fossil fuel companies when she was a senator, why she participated the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009 with Barack Obama in which they successfully got many countries to agree to the Copenhagen Accord which formed the basis the recent Paris climate agreement, why she is calling for half a billion solar panels by the end of her first term and all Americans getting electricity from green energy sources by the end of the her second term. Anyone following her campaign should reach the conclusion that she is a climate hawk. Klein's thesis simply does not stand up to the evidence that Clinton, like Sanders, would be an excellent president for fighting climate change. I wish that I could say the same about the Republican candidates but they clearly would all be a disaster.


Everyone should read Klein's excellent article for themselves, and not drink the corporate-apologist "mainstream" swill that LRX pours endlessly.


Trump would be a bumbler and ineffective. Hillary is a shark for corporate interests. Yeah, she knows what she's doing - their bidding.


The Democratic Party establishment is backing Clinton because she is a corporate money magnet. I doubt that Hillary begged the Party to let her run. The Party probably begged her to run seeing how nobody is better at getting corporate money.


You make some good points. Sanders is far and above the better candidate, but people seem to engage in a lot of cognitive distortions regarding Clinton. Clinton does in fact at least acknowledge the seriousness of global warming and has supported measures, while still not sufficient, have made a difference - notably the large reductions in coal usage for electric generation. And she is also correct that one cannot "ban fracking" any more than one can ban steelmaking or automobiles - the pollution the process produces is what is banned.

And this cognitive distortion really gets out of hand when I start hearing people say a Trump or Cruz presidency is preferable to a Clinton presidency. That is utterly preposterous. Do they know what all the Republicans positions are on global warming and the environment, economic justice, racism, human rights, Israel/Palestine and foreign interventionism? With the possible exception of foreign interventionism - where their views (like all presidential prospects going back to at least Polk, with the possible exception of Eugene McCarthy) are similar, they are far worse,


Tell a Muslim or Black, or Latinx USAn that all he will be is a "bumbler".


BINGO! Thanks.


Of course you can ban fracked natural gas! Natural gas from geology sources is going to run out anyway. We COULD and should be capturing methane from all sewage treatment plants, farms and other sources which could provide some natural gas. But more importantly we need insulation and
energy efficient buildings to lower the use of fossil fuels to heat them...


I just realized!
She is Bankenstein!


None of those other sources is sufficient. And conventional sources of gas and oil are about depleted. Affordable or subsidized alternatives need to be provided for fossil fuels first. New York's ban on fracking is successful because the best reserves weren't there anyway, and they are instead consuming gas from adjacent Pennsylvania.


A problem with the "we need affordable alternatives first" argument is that the continued subsidization and corporate promotion of fossil fuels is hindering the development of alternativre energy. Take a look at how the WTO responds to feed-in-tariff systems that like that which was, for a time hugely successful in Ontario.


The Obama administration is bad, but you are mistaken if you believe that we are even close to how bad things can get. Obama is not burning mosques or lynching black people. He is also not declaring global warming to be a hoax, banning EV sales (a Republican congressman in my area actually did that at the car dealership he owns), dismantling public transportation as "socialism". Obama did not abolish the clean air act, the clean water act and the civil rights act, the Wagner act, the fair labor standards act, the OSHSA act, the mine safety act... Lots of Republicans would actually do all these things - they are only waiting for a republican president and a few more republican senators

All you mentioned were foreign policy issues, There is more to life than foreign policy. You also might be surprised to learn that even Sanders supports most of what you listed.

You are engaging in form of cognitive distortion called "cognitive exaggeration" where one lets an endless tape loop play in their head in order to confirm a entrenched cognitive construct. This is similar to the way someone might come to believe the world is ending when they lose a job or a girlfriend.


You do know that Naomi Klein is Canadian, don't you?


Crude exports 2016

US Crude Exports Congress

LNG 2016


Thanks. Yeah, lesser evil is still evil!


She's Canadian, i.e. ineligible.


"There is more to life than foreign policy."

Well, that certainly depends on one's foreign policy, which can cause the loss of life itself, certainly for those who are the objects of attack, and perhaps for all of us. I suggest that HRC's foreign policy is what most disqualifies her for the presidency.