President Obama does not work for you or us *anymore*, he is free to work for those he choses to

[CreekDog]

We do not own him.

He does not, and I argue, he should not need to, nor need to seek to get white people to approve of him.

President Obama does not serve us full time. That he chooses to take some of his time to advocate for some causes that we want him to advocate for is *his* choice, not ours.

Part of me almost wants him to go earn boatloads of money in ways that some of his fiercest critics here don't approve of, if only to prove to them, that *they* are not the ones who get to choose what Obama does. In his actions now, they do not need to matter. They certainly appear to matter to Obama, but *reminder* they don't *need* to matter.

He owes you, he owes us *nothing*. He completed his term as President, with distinction, and has well-earned the right to ignore his critics.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I agree absolutely, my dear CreekDog. n/t

[denbot]

2. We elected him for a short time.

This country is full of talented, intelligent, driven people that can fill his shoes. It is up to us to to live in the present, find, and elect them.

[LovingA2andMI]

3. K/R.....

[Skittles]

4. I am confused

is someone saying otherwise?

[CreekDog]

6. Of course

[Skittles]

22. and they're upset because he is cashing in?

too bad, huh?

[CreekDog]

35. I can't think of many examples of people who don't make money off their resume

Ain't many I can come up with.

[whathehell]

49. Oh please.--.It's not a matter "making money" off one's resume --.everyone does that.

I think it's the amount AND the audience -- Wall.Street. For what it's worth, the "audience" bothers much more than the sum...Wall Street is not our friend.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. But Obama isn't eligible to run for president again, so his influence peddling risk is low.

I mean, unless there's some sort of suspicion of a payoff here, which I do not suppose.

Honestly he ought to be rewarded. Look at the economy. Sure, the banks were profiting from the spiral, but the inevitable outcome was going to be depression, and onerous regulation/antitrust. Obama and the larger circle of leadership he helped install, successfully navigated that risk, and stoked the economy, with honestly very minimal additional regulation of the banks.

Wall street ought to be fucking grateful, and they ought to pay heed to his opinions moving forward.



If he were running for president or something like that, I'd be more concerned. But I think this is a non-issue.

[whathehell]

61. You do make a good point..

and I can't argue with you on it..So I won't.

[Caliman73]

63. Wall Street is not our friend, but not our enemy either.

Wall Street is people. Some are good people, trying to work ethically to maximize the investments of their customers and make a good living. Some are dishonest and will bend or break the rules to get rich. Wall Street is not one single entity, it is a sector of the economy that is governed by rules.

The problem is that some of the people who have the most power and influence in the investment, banking, and finance sector try to shape the rules to allow them to make more money and not sharing the fruits of the labor and capital we put into investments. It is up to the government to regulate that, which President Obama tried to do, but the President cannot act alone and he did not have much help in Congress.

He is speaking to people who work on Wall Street. He isn't going give them "all the secrets to screwing over the people".

[whathehell]

65. That's your view, and at one time I might have agreed, but not now..

Wall Street is more than just a collection of people...It's a powerful entity whose major reason for being seems to be power and greed.

[Caliman73]

72. Who runs "Wall Street"

Who is the head of "Wall Street" an entity usually has a head or group of people, like the Mafia had the Commission with Luciano and the bosses of the Italian Mafia on the board. SO who heads this entity called Wall Street?

The purpose of Wall Street is to maximize profit yes, we can certainly say that this mindset leads to greed and the desire for power. I won't argue that. However, "Wall Street" has become the symbol for greed and power because it has been portrayed as such by our media, meaning progressive media. Again, I am not arguing that the problems of greed, corruption, and abuse of power do not exist in firms on Wall Street. I just don't think that blanket answers serve us well.

[betsuni]

76. +1

[Skittles]

71. yes

he certainly is not special

[Hekate]

18. Yes they are, and they need an ass-kicking....

For old time's sake.

[whathehell]

26. Not on this board..

.

[CreekDog]

36. yes on this board.

[whathehell]

38. I haven't seen it,

but wherever it is, it seems to be getting shouted down with thunderous outrage and I'm shocked, just shocked I tell ya.

[Starry Messenger]

5. This backlash is outrageous.

[CreekDog]

7. I swear some people think he still owes them something

It really feels like that.

[Docreed2003]

9. I feel like he owes me a beer...

I'm still bitter that I didn't win that ticket raffle for lunch and a beer with him and Biden back during his first term!! (I'm teasing...well a little )

Seriously though, you're absolutely correct and people who are buying into this outrage are only trying to tear him down and disrupt the party as a whole. I heard this on Sirius XM Progress tonight and I think the point is spot on, the evening host made the statement "What kind of statement are you sending to the members of the Dem Party who are POC when you suggest that the nations first black president doesn't have the right to earn as much money as he deserves?"

[murielm99]

15. Heck yeah!

Beer and traveling money.

[whathehell]

33. Um, it has nothing to do with that

and I'm truly sorry, but Obama, much as we may love him, is still a mortal man, which means he's not above criticism..even by "white people".

[CreekDog]

34. HE DOES NOT WORK FOR YOU ANYMORE

Criticize until your voice wears out.

[whathehell]

40. He doesn't need to..

He can still be criticized., and you can try and deny that until your fingers fracture.

[whathehell]

50. Which backlash?

The one against PBO or the one against his critics?

[bettyellen]

8. When we have a president that right NOW refuses all accountability

Yet people are talking about THIs. They gotta get their heads right. WTF

[JustAnotherGen]

41. Amen!

If you panty bunch over this - but not Trump and his grifting, lack of tax returns, taking us into war with North Korea - you need to get your priorities straight.

IDGAF - People are free to do so.

I only give a fuck about taking every shot I can at that 45 nothing.

[Raster]

10. Hear! Hear!

[AgadorSparticus]

11. Amen to that! If he CHOOSES to make a million dollars to speak,

It is his choice. GOOD. FOR. HIM. I am happy for him. Why are people always looking for shit to criticize him?

Drives me nuts.

[whathehell]

43. Funny, I didn't hear much of that when Hillary was being savaged for it

Double standards. Shocked, I'm shocked I tell ya.

[AgadorSparticus]

73. Barking up the wrong tree. I certainly never criticized her.

I would have defended her too.

[whathehell]

74. I'm making an observation..

I didn't accuse you, personally, of anything.

[AgadorSparticus]

79. Oh sorry. I misunderstood. Don't gt me started on the double standard that Hillary had to go through

It shows the very deep misogyny that exists in this country. I have always known about the racism but the misogyny took me by surprise this last election go round.

It saddens me that we aren't further along.

[whathehell]

80. No problem...

Yes, it has surprised me too, and I think it's the most dismissed of all the "isms".
Nation writer, Katha Pollitt, has called misogny "The last acceptable bigotry of the Left".

[whathehell]

45. Absolutely!..I think he could declare himself God right now

and we could all ay "Amen" to that.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

12. K&R nt

[betsuni]

13. I find it extremely offensive,

the conviction (of alt-left idiots) that if either Hillary Clinton or President Obama are paid the going rate for a speech, even when they are obviously not holding office, it HAS to be some sort of bribe or payout, has to be something corrupt, something fishy going on. What do they see when they see Obama and Clinton? I'm used to the old reliable Republican smear against liberals as capitalism-haters who must be hypocrites when they make money. But calling someone a limousine liberal isn't nearly as ugly as assuming they're not only corrupt but plotting the destruction of America with evil corporations and Wall St. in speeches. They're sure if only they could get their hands on those transcripts, they could prove it. Sick.

[dalton99a]

25. +1

[Kentonio]

48. I don't begrudge Obama a single dime

But I think there is not a single thing wrong with people wanting to see the transcripts of speeches people give to powerful organizations for large sums of money when they're going to run for the highest office in the land afterwards. If they're not saying anything wrong, then be open and transparent. If they are, then the public have a right to now about it.

Money has a huge corrupting influence on politics, and its not a smear on anyone to ask for transparency. If politicians are not being corrupted by the money, then they have absolutely no excuses for trying to hide their speeches to banks and big business. Those speeches are about getting the speaker in the room, listening to some anecdotes and canned advice and maybe getting to shake hands with them afterwards. They're not teaching amazing secrets that need to be hidden away.

[betsuni]

53. Parts of those speeches were leaked.

The worst they could come up with was that she said she favors open trade and Wall St. executives were best-positioned to help reform the U.S. financial sector. So what. I'm sure she talked about women in executive positions. If there was even a shadow of a hint of anything bad in those speeches it would be out there. Like Bill Clinton in the 90s. How many tax dollars went into investigating him for all those years. Like Obama's birth certificate. No matter what you do, they want more. No surprise if either Clinton or the institutions she gave the speeches to don't want to give the transcripts away. It's nothing. Hillary Clinton is no more corrupted than I am. The end.

[Kentonio]

57. If there's nothing to hide, then she should have put them out there as soon as it became an issue.

That kind of secrecy just ends up turning a minor thing into a big talking point. It's not at all like Obama's birth certificate, that was a ridiculous nonsense than no self respecting person should have paid a moments heed to. I'm actually still annoyed that he did end up releasing it, I really wish he'd just told those birther assholes to go fuck themselves.

Highly paid speeches to big business when you're about to run for a job where you'll have direct influence over policies that effect those companies is a very different thing though. The optics of doing it are already bad, and then refusing to allow anyone to know what was said is just ridiculous. Even if there is literally nothing in the slightest bit controversial, then hiding it just leads people to think there must be something controversial because otherwise why would you hide it? Especially when just the cycle before we'd had releases of hidden footage of Romney giving private speeches and talking shit about half the country. That stuff stays in people's minds, and as soon as they hear 'private speeches' they're likely to make that mental link.

I didn't accuse Hillary of being corrupt, but its not enough to not be corrupt, you have to be seen to be above suspicion and to set the highest possible standard. She hurt her campaign badly with the speech thing, and I really wish her advisors had had the common sense to get in front of it and make it a non-issue. We can't hand Republicans free ammunition like that, its damaging and deeply self-defeating. In 2020 we need to be flawless.

[nadine_mn]

14. No shit (sorry to be so blunt)

But I read an article on HuffPo that has really torqued me off about his $400, 000 speaking fee - the author said that because the Obamas are already rich, they don't need the money.

Then they made the inference that those fees are why Obama was not tough on Wall Street Banks.

This really pisses me off - people who were born rich and continue to make money - no backlash. Heaven forbid you had to work your ass off through school and actually earn your money. I never understood the hate towards the Clintons either for their speaking fees - again they didn't come from money. So it's ok to be rich if your parents earned it but not if you are the one working.

I am not a fan of being rich just to be rich - I think there is a point where you really don't need anymore. But that is just me and of course I grew dirt poor so $50 is pretty damn exciting.

Democrats can't fucking win - that somehow they need to be in a one room shed wearing old clothes and giving every penny to charity or else there is no way they can represent the average American.

Or the asshats that were lamenting how dare Obama take a vacation after he left office when he should be addressing the shit storm happening around Trump. He did his job, he did it well - he doesn't owe us anything. He's not some damn superhero.

Sorry - lol I guess this struck a nerve.

[TomCADem]

16. Unlike Trump, Who Continues To Hustle On the Side...

...Indeed, Trump is actively using the Presidency to enrich himself at the expense of the American people whether it be his tax plan or pimping his properties.

[Quayblue]

17. K&R

He did his job and very well.

I, personally, have learned a lot careerwise from the Obama family..
Always do your best and then move on as needed and as necessary.

Politics is complementary as well as personal. We learn from the process as well as ourselves.

[YOHABLO]

19. It has nothing to do whether he owes anyone. It's about integrity.

This was written by Jon Schwarz for The Intercept:

BARACK OBAMA will deliver a speech this September at a swanky healthcare conference for investors run by Cantor Fitzgerald. As Fox Business News first reported on Monday, the firm is paying him $400,000.

The ensuing criticism of Obama for cashing in on his presidency has been thunderous – but has overlooked exactly whose money he is taking.

Cantor Fitzgerald, a major Wall Street brokerage house, lost 658 of its 960 employees when the World Trade Center was destroyed in the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. But when it settled a long-running lawsuit against American Airlines for $135 million in 2013, the proceeds didn’t go to the families of the dead.

At the time of the settlement, Cantor’s CEO Howard Lutnick issued a statement: “For the insurance companies, this was just another case, just another settlement, but not for us. We could never, and will never, consider it ordinary. For us, there is no way to describe this compromise with inapt words like ordinary, fair or reasonable.”

But Lutnick and his fellow Cantor partners reportedly kept some of the money for the firm and distributed the rest to themselves, in proportion to their ownership stake. Lutnick, the firm’s biggest partner, may have received as much as $25 million.

And according to Liz O’Brien and Marilyn Rocha-Carmo, widows of two of the Cantor employees killed on 9/11, the firm never informed them of the settlement — nor even that the company had filed the lawsuit in the first place.

Rocha-Carmo, whose husband Antonio was a Cantor bond trader, sounded noticeably taken aback when told of the firm’s actions. “It is a little shocking,” she said, because Lutnick “always made it sound like he was always going to take care of us, and was doing everything in our best interest, and now learning about this doesn’t feel like that anymore.” Rocha-Carmo added that she is in touch with other Cantor victim families via social media, and they do not appear to be aware of the American Airlines settlement.

Cantor declined to comment about the lawsuit’s outcome. Because Cantor is a partnership, little about its finances is publicly available.

Obama’s office did not respond to a request for comment on the settlement.

In a statement released on Wednesday, Obama senior adviser Eric Schultz wrote, “As we announced months ago, President Obama will deliver speeches from time to time. Some of those speeches will be paid, some will be unpaid, and regardless of venue or sponsor, President Obama will be true to his values, his vision and his record.” Schultz also said Obama accepted the invitation “because, as a president who successfully passed health insurance reform, it’s an issue of great importance to him.”

I think that Obama should reconsider taking money from this company unless he donates it to the families of 9/11 or some other charity. It's not like he needs the money, with his wife and himself just signing a book deal worth $65 million dollars. Many went after Hillary Clinton and her pay for speeches to corporate entities.

[uponit7771]

20. Dooooooood somehow Obama has less for taking money for his speeches? tia

[Skittles]

21. did you actually read the post?

[CreekDog]

23. The one where yet another white man says it's wrong for Obama to get paid

Obama becomes the only person in America who people think is required to not make money based on his previous job.

[HoneyBadger]

27. You are saying that it is good for a white man to pay Obama

But not for a white man to criticize paying Obama?

Is that a fair summary of the argument?

[CreekDog]

29. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. isn't a white man

and Jonathan Schwartz doesn't do his job for free -he got paid for that dreck.

[JustAnotherGen]

42. Good point

How much did that 'journalist' get paid? What his salary?

[HoneyBadger]

44. Have you seen Lutnick? He is as white as white can be.

I knew several people who died at Cantor, one on their first day of work, and a friend lost both brothers there, so I have been following the story since the 1st plane hit.

[HoneyBadger]

46. Lutnick missed work that morning because he was taking his kid to the first day of school

So he got to watch it happen as he was headed downtown. Over 600 employees died, including his brother. At the time, he was impossibly rich. He was in the process of building a residence near Bloomberg's that made Bloomberg's house look like a homeless shelter.

After 9/11, he made an impassioned plea on tv and to Wall Street to give him business in order to help his company. That no company ever had a plan to lose that many employees at once. And that a significant percentage of all future profits would go to their families. Even at the time, it seemed tacky, but we were all mourning.

Obviously he has bounced back.

I have been looking at that face for a while.

[Skittles]

78. no, he is not special

he is like all the others

[Starry Messenger]

24. The Intercept--hahahahaha. Glenn Greenwald's rag.

[Demit]

32. The writer thinks Obama should atone for Cantor Fitzgerald's actions? That's ridiculous.

And you, you're saying he should still give the speech, but then give the money away to others. In essence, do the work for free. Why?

[betsuni]

39. Integrity. The other day I bought some very reasonably priced house brand cream cheese

from Seiyu, which is owned by Walmart. I've never shopped at a Walmart in the U.S. and would feel guilty doing so, yet I gave this terrible corporation my custom. I held my nose and bought the cheese. I am weak, have sold my soul for inexpensive dairy products. My integrity is destroyed. May as well eat all the soon-to-be-extinct tuna too. I'm going to Hell anyway. Lock me up! Lock me up!

[whathehell]

28. "He does not need to seek to get white people to approve of him"

What?...You think only "white" Americans might disapprove?...Maybe you should lose the racially divisive shit and remember what PBO

himself, in one of his most famous speeches, said: "There is no white America, there is no black America", there is only the United States of America".

[CreekDog]

31. It's racially divisive to say that the first black president has to live up to some new standard

[whathehell]

37. Um, it's not a "new" standard, and

though I know you'll never believe this, it may actually have NOTHING to do with his being black!...Amazing concept,.I know.

[mcar]

30. K&R

[ChoppinBroccoli]

47. I've Noticed That The People Crying About Obama Making A Paid Speech.......

..........are the same people who have absolutely no problem with the fact that #Dolt45 made his money by ripping people off. Negotiate a fair exchange of services in exchange for money in a FREE MARKET economy? You'll face the wrath of people who are willing to die for free market capitalism. Make millions committing fraud? They'll defend you to the death. Right-wingers literally stand for nothing and believe in nothing more than protecting and cheering on their "team."

[dalton99a]

54. +1

[earthshine]

55. You've noticed? Look again.

The people who criticize Obama for this are the ones who want money out of politics. All money. All politics.

These are people, like me, who voted for him in 2008 based on the message Hope and Change.

Except for some bots, sockpuppets, and trolls, no one on the DU is fine with Trump's overt thievery and corruption.

It's perfectly legal for Obama to cash in. But, he wishes to maintain influence on the Dem party, and Cantor Fitz is paying to maintain Wall St's influence on him.

It sends a message to other Dem politicians. We have money for you!

[whathehell]

66. Whaaat?

You mean Elizabeth Warren? You're joking, right?

[stonecutter357]

51. K&R!

[BannonsLiver]

56. I hope he makes enough to wipe his rear with $100 bills

If for no other reason than to annoy, Shock and freak out all the nutty alt left purity zombies who never had his back to begin with. They can go pound sand, wherever they are.

[betsuni]

60. Heh!

[whathehell]

64. "..just to annoy all nutty alt left zombies who never had his back to begin with"

and how many of those were there, eight?....V

rtually EVERYONE on the Left had his back, even when he didn't have ours...Get real.

[BannonsLiver]

67. I dunno, what's the current number of members at JPR?

"even when he didn't have ours"

Talk about getting real.

[whathehell]

68. JPR came out of the 2016 primaries --.It even exist until the last year of his presidency..

so I'm pretty sure your argument is null and void on its face.

Btw, failing to worship a president as some here seem to, doesn't mean you don't generally support him...Criticism is "allowed" in a democracy.

As for my apparent "heresy" of his not always having our backs, sorry, but in terms of Traditional Democratic values, no, I don't think he always did --

Then again, you may view those values as " nutty" and "alt left".

[BannonsLiver]

69. Like I said, "they can go pound sand, wherever they are."

But hey you have a nice day.

[whathehell]

70. Lol..

Fail much?

[we can do it]

58. Absolutely. Sick of the purity hypocrisy.

Look what it's given us😡

[all american girl]

59. Wondering....

This speechifying was not much of a problem until the lady and the black guy did it...funny, also, I've seen where there are those who think they should (have) done it for free....hmmmm.

[Orsino]

62. He is trading on the office we entrusted him with.

That he is free to do as he pleases doesn't release us from our responsibility to monitor how leaders profit from their time in office.

Waiting until he's well out of office to collect fees like this one is a good sign. Just...let's not abandon reason altogether. Watch President Obama, if only to keep in practice for less-benevolent ex-presidents.

[betsuni]

75. ...

[Hell Hath No Fury]

77. He is indeed free to work for those he chooses to.

And I am free to come to conclusions about him and how much I should consider his future opinions based on it.

[kentuck]

81. He can work against your interests if he wants...

I don't think he will but that seems to be the argument.

If he promotes the interests of big banks and big insurance companies over the interests of the people, then would that be alright?