Shoot me. I don't have a problem with President Obama giving paid speeches.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

He is a retired political official. I do strongly prefer that his remarks be made public.

[underpants]

1. Who would?

That's ridiculous that anyone would.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. A prominent Democrat has.

Hillary was criticized for giving speeches and then running for office. To some this gave the appearance that the people who paid for her speeches were buying influence. I don't care to litigate that. But in this instance President Obama's situation is fundamentally different.

[ananda]

23. Exactly!

Reagan, Bush, and Bill Clinton did the same thing!

[BadgerMom]

90. But their fathers weren't from Africa

The critics have a problem with paid public speaking while black.

[liberalnarb]

95. That argument is nonsense.

People on the Progressive left criticized Bush, Clinton, and Reagan for their speeches to try and bring racism into this is complete bull.

[George II]

34. And a prominent Independent, too.

I attribute much of this to envy. Obama will probably be one of the most sought after ex-Presidents ever.

Incidentally, Obama has spoken at least TWICE at my college without getting paid a thin dime.

[BannonsLiver]

119. He was an amazing public servant who risked his life to run and be president

For us. So yeah, people who have a problem with this, including EW, with all due respect, and love, can kiss my rosy red ass.

[George II]

120. A number of people I know, and not those prone to conspiracy theories, were afraid....

....he wouldn't live through his two terms. The ONLY relief I felt on January 20 is that he did. Thank God.

[BannonsLiver]

121. I worried about it almost every day. Especially at the beginning. Like you said, Thank God.

[Hekate]

142. +2

[Hekate]

141. +1

[FBaggins]

52. That's obviously the key difference

It's entirely appropriate for him to receive speaking fees (and they're obviously in line with the market)...

... the problem would come if he were planning on running for President (which, of course, is not possible).

[ehrnst]

85. Well, if you're a woman, it's really different. Somehow. (nt)

[MoonRiver]

2. I don't either!

And I just can't understand all the angst over this.

[Demsrule86]

3. I don't either. I can't understand why Sen. Warren would even comment on this.

She has a tough race in 18 and President Obama is very popular.

[rpannier]

13. who is running against her?

I have seen nothing that says 2018 will be tough for her

[Demsrule86]

21. She is below 50% approval in some early polls...never a good thing for a sitting Senator.

[rpannier]

38. She is up around 50 in April polling

I have found
So far Diehl, Gomez, Kingston and Ayyadurai are the only namez being bandied about.
Diehl is a yuuuuge Trump supporter. Gomez got flattened by Markley. Kingston is a new to politics. Ayyadurai claims to have invented email
Mass seems to have about as strong a Republikkan bench as Dems do in Ohio
If Baker decides to run, then maybe some concern.
I am still waiting on Schilling to toss his glove into the ring

[Demsrule86]

89. That is good news...let's hope she wins with huge margins.

I can't imagine Mass voting for a GOP with Trump in office.

[Stellar]

42. WOW...I haven't been keeping up.

Her rating are down there with Trumps...what's up going on with her?

[frazzled]

80. I don't live in Massachusetts anymore

but when I did I was involved in Democratic political groups fairly actively, so I kind of know what the MO is there. In typical New England fashion, Massachusetts Democrats (which includes a very wide gamut of positions, from way conservative to Chomsky radical) want to see their legislators work nose to the grindstone on legislation and constituent services (this last is very important to them--you expect your legislators to show up at your Democratic Town Committee meetings and listen to the local needs, to help out groups with their pet projects, etc.). It's very community based.

Unlike Hillary Clinton when she first came to the senate, and kept her head down and listened and worked and kept traveling all around her state to get stuff done for them in Washington, EW came in and wanted a place on the national stage right away. My guess is that the New England ethic does not feel comfortable with showy orators or grandstanders and really wants to see workhorse, Massachusetts-focused representatives. Teddy Kennedy was absolutely revered for the amount of time and resources he put in to working on local projects and showing up at local meetings to listen ... and then followiing through with allocations of staff assistance and going back to Washington to try to get legislation through for some of these local concerns. My guess is that Elizabeth Warren is seen as putting too much time into big, broad national issues, and securing her place in the limelight, and maybe too little time on Massachusetts residents in particular. It's not very New Englandy. Well, I'm just guessing. As I said, I haven't lived there for a dozen years, and I don't know what's going on on the ground with her there, just what I see from afar.

[Stellar]

112. I really love Senator Warren...

but I also like the way they do things in Massachusetts. They want to know that their Senator is all about their community, and that's good. I hope she can meet their expectations because the party needs her.

Thank you so much for sharing.

[George II]

37. We're still about a year from the start of the campaign.

[rpannier]

45. Massachusetts doesn't have a deep

Republican bench. Names of strong candidates who could challenge should be fairly visible
So far, it's only Diehl who has expressed vocal interest -- him and Curt Schilling

Gomez, who got dispatched by Markley may choose to run again. An investor, John Kingston is thinking about it. So is Ayyadurai (claims he invented email).
Unless Baker runs, there really is not anybody at this point.

Before you bring up Brown and Coaxley, Coaxley has proven to be a horrid campaigner.

[George II]

48. Brown is on his way to Australia

[rpannier]

53. I didn't know that

Interesting
I wonder if he'll run for something down there. He could join the Hunters-Farmers-Fisherman"s Party.
It's an actual party, though I may have the order of names mixed up. Fairly conservative lot as well. With a name like that it's probably fairly obvious about it's leanings.
I wonder, would they let me join if I told them I was a bus driver who didn't hunt or fish?

[George II]

57. Correction - he's actually going to be trump's ambassador to New Zealand, not Australia.

[rpannier]

67. What did New Zealand do?

Though it could be worse. It could have been Palin

[trixie2]

81. Poor Canada, they are our best friends

Who amongst us has not cut through their backyard to get from the midwest to northeast quickly?

When we travel there, 10 minutes away, they always treat us like an abused child now. Good people the Canadians.

Why? Why must he antagonize our allies?

[hughee99]

111. There is a Kennedy in the house now (Joe P. Kennedy III) from MA-4

and it's only a matter of time until he runs for Senate.

[sheshe2]

114. Rumor has it Gov. Charlie Baker-R may run.

He is actually well liked in MA. It could be a tough race.

[monmouth4]

15. She really disappointed me with those remarks. n/t

[Demsrule86]

17. me too. I really like her.

[Bear Creek]

32. It's who

Hillary and Obama cozying up to Wall Street ? Really, wall street needs to be called out and most of them should have been put in jail over the financial meltdown that hit working and poor people. What was those speeches about? If it was to read them Down the road good and excusable. Hillary voted yes on Bush's consumer protection bill one of the reasons why the meltdown occurred. Interest rate over 30%, no bankruptcy protections. She and the other democrats who voted for it should have stood up and blocked it instead of approving it. By the way Obama did nothing to roll any of it back. This is why people say the democrats and republicans are the same. Yes I voted for them mainly because of the lesser than two evils. I am tired of that.

[JustAnotherGen]

49. They can't be put into jail

Without a specific law that was broken that would lead to an indictment, trial, and if the jury says so - jail time.

The way to do that is for Sanders and Warren to work to make that a 'law'.

Obama, Clinton, and former SOS HRC Clinton - none are Federal law makers.

[HenryWallace]

62. Well said!

Matt Yglesias' piece was dead-on (probably too tame)! It reflects a changing political desire.


This entire tread reeks of "situational ethics" and partisan hypocrisy!

Really; the standard is: "everybody else did it?"

[brush]

82. WTF, he's got two kids to put through college. What, white ex-presidents can but the black guy can't

[Bear Creek]

123. Re-read

Hillary in it too. If a democrat that says they are for social justice then that means economic also. That should be the message.

[brush]

128. Still don't get your opposition. He's one of 6 people on the planet with Presidential credentials

That's the going rate for a person with the insight and knowledge gained from that experience.
He's going to make a speech at a healthcare conference, one of his pet issues.

He may donate the money to charity or to a foundation. We don't know what he'll do but it's frankly, none of our business since he's a private citizen now.

[BannonsLiver]

133. How's the weather in Moldova these days?

[ehrnst]

92. Cozying up to Wall Street - like voting for Bill Clinton's Commodity Futures Modernization Act?

Actually voting for it?

Wouldn't that make an Independent rep just as complicit as those "Democrats and Republicans?

Especially if that rep never expressed regret?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

[Demsrule86]

93. I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Cha]

73. Yeah, it's like she doesn't want him campaigning

with her.

[ExciteBike66]

5. I agree

Obama is unlikely to ever run again for office, so there really is no hint of corruption here.

I bet that Obama will continue to support causes in which we believe, which means that money might actually go to good use...

[Cha]

6. President Obama has earned the right to

get paid for his work.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[treestar]

8. Thanks for that Cha

I wish I'd known that about 2008! He was not accused the way Hillary was for raising money from "Wall Street."

[Cha]

50. You're Welcome, treestar!

[Stellar]

46. hear, hear!

[Cha]

51. Hey Stellar

[Phoenix61]

65. This!

The idea that dems can't/shouldn't take money from big donors because they will be beholding to them is just ludicrous. Good economic policy creates stability and sustainable growth which even greedy Wall Street recognizes is good for the bottom line.

[Cha]

71. Yes, so many reasons why complaining about

President Obama earning money like this for his work is wrong.

He's a man with a plan to do some good with his money.

[steve2470]

91. hear hear! nt

[GoCubsGo]

126. Well said, Trevor!!!

[Cha]

145. ..

[treestar]

7. Notice no whining about any Republican whatsoever

Maybe envy since Dubya and Poppy likely could not get anything for it.

[whathehell]

10. That could be because

no one expects anything else from them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Poppy Bush isn't making any more paid speeches

Dubya gets 100-175 K a speech:


http://fortune.com/2015/06/11/politician-speaking-fees-speeches/

[treestar]

68. Hehehehe

even wall Street knows Obama is worth more!

[rzemanfl]

9. They can shoot me too. n/t

[3catwoman3]

11. I hope he makes...

...a frickin' fortune.

[Glorfindel]

14. Nor do I. He should be as free as anyone else to accept fees for services rendered.

I'd actually love to hear him give a speech.

[George II]

41. But, but, but....

...."Wall Street"?

[HarmonyRockets]

152. You are not rich enough to hear him speek

Sorry, it's just the truth.

[mcar]

16. Me either

[alarimer]

18. It would only be a problem if he were running for something

And then it would be bad, because these people he's speaking to expect something in return.

Which is the entirety of our system in a nutshell. The paymasters buy the politicians so they can make the rules to suit themselves.

[samnsara]

27. but trump didnt give speeches to WS and hes totally in their back pocket!

...if youre smart you can do both.

[Bettie]

19. He's not running for office anymore, so yeah, he can give speeches

to whatever group he chooses.

[mopinko]

20. we might need to take up a collection for more bullets. like i said in another thread

he not only served w distinction, he put his life and the lives of his family on the line like no other president did.
he faced such a deluge of hate and bile, and did it w such class.

he is entitled to whatever the traffic will bear.

i also dont think he is gonna be spending it on gold toilets, either.

[inwiththenew]

22. It's the way the game works

Politicians go to Washington and serve and then have lucrative post-politics gigs. He's not the first and won't be the last.

I don't begrudge him any more than I do the guy making $10 million dollars a year to throw a football or recite lines on camera. If you can command that kind of money, by honest means, then have at it.

[mountain grammy]

24. I'm fine with it..

He has two children to put through college. He's a highly respected former president. Why shouldn't he be paid for his speeches?

[Augiedog]

25. He deserves every dime he earns. After what he put up with from Americans, I say good for him.

[samnsara]

26. same here!!

[Lil Missy]

28. I don't either. Nor did I ever care about Hillary's paid speeches.

[HAB911]

29. He should make speeches and stay on camera as much as possible

just to accentuate the difference between him and Dump, drum in in! Make money!

[Nonhlanhla]

30. Funny how people complain when it's a woman or a black man

giving paid speeches.

I always thought that the attacks on Hillary for her speeches were thinly-veiled misogyny, since it hinted at the idea that she was whoring herself out. Likewise I think that attacking Obama for giving a paid speech hints at the idea that a black man ought not to be paid, or not that much at least.

Even when I get a speaker to come speak at our university, they get paid a sum, which is usually in tune with how famous they are.

[George II]

44. Excellent point, that hadn't dawned on me.

[DownriverDem]

31. Totally Agree

Besides we need to do all we can to defeat the repubs and that is our focus. Support every Dem you can. We have a two party system. One will win.

[bronxiteforever]

33. I don't give a crap. This is a capitalist society. He is retired.

He speaks well. People want to see him(market interest). He did not take a vow of poverty. Gopers do it all the time.
This is a distraction. He is a former president and does not impact policy. Let's pay attention to the swells who actually run this show now. God knows, in the time I wrote this, they probably terrorized another dreamer, polluted a stream, denied a woman her health care and sold 45s hats out of our foreign embassies.

[Mountain Mule]

61. Hear, hear!

Couldn't agree more. And let's not forget destroying our public lands, saber rattling with N. Korea, continuing backstage misdeeds with the Ruskies - the list of atrocities is endless. If Obama gets paid to make some speeches?

[bronxiteforever]

88. You are right- can't keep up with the evil! N/t

[VigilantG]

105. Completely agree it is OK

For same reasons!

Obama has integrity, and I do not see him compromising his beliefs because he gets paid for speeches. He absolutely deserves to compensated for his time and status.

[bronxiteforever]

118. He is not spending tax money to pay for golf carts

At mar-a-largo!

[BumRushDaShow]

35. Joe Madison has been ranting about this

both yesterday and this morning. I.e., the fact that suddenly certain "liberals/progressives" have been attacking Obama for getting paid to speak.

[kpete]

36. just found THIS:

[BeyondGeography]

131. That is just so many levels of lame

Barack and Michelle are well on their way to making $100 million in the next few years, maybe even sooner. Nobody on this board at least has anything resembling a problem with that, not that I've seen. Was there an outcry over his $400K payday yesterday for a 90-minute interview with Doris Kearns Goodwin for A&E? No. But let a few people point out the fact that paid Wall Street speeches by our leaders haven't exactly been a plus for the broader Democratic cause and all of a sudden it's a racial issue. Please.

[R B Garr]

39. "Paid speeches are only a problem since the woman and

the black guy started doing them". ---Heard on the Stephanie Miller show.

The whole idea that it's somehow shameful and corrupt to be a sought after public figure is just contrived phony bull crap.. So what about the speeches.

[athena]

148. Exactly.

The double-standard is disgusting.

[PoliticAverse]

151. Sorry, but Stephanie Miller is old enough to remember all the criticism Ronald Reagan received...

from the speeches he gave in Japan after he was President.

[QC]

157. So was Reagan black or female?

I'm getting up in years, but I'm pretty sure he was a white guy, painfully white, even, and he caught a lot of flack for giving big money speeches in Japan after leaving office.

Having said that, I don't care at all about Obama's speech. He's a private citizen and this is how things are done now. But yes, many people were quite critical of Reagan's paid speeches.

[R B Garr]

159. Really? A $2 million speech thirty years ago would be

like an $8 million speech now if you account for thirty years of inflation. What did Bernie have to say about Reagan's speech back then? I honestly don't remember. What I do remember are stories of Reagan's friends taking over their lives to associate themselves with Reagan's popularity (with the GOP) and they were house shopping with and for them, etc.

Reagan's normal/regular fees were in line with what dignitaries of his stature make (ex-Presidents, public officials, etc), as I remember. That *our* side is maligning our leaders with this sanctimonious sniveling criticism about earnings in line with their stature in the world is definitely unique to the self-sabotaging fringe types. Reagan was wildly popular with the GOP for decades after he left office.

[Sculpin Beauregard]

40. This really is a non-issue. I like Warren

but I wish she wouldn't have made that remark. He's a private citizen now, not a public official.

[Paladin]

43. As usual, there's a racial component to the right-wing complaints about Obama's actions. (nt)

[George II]

47. Unfortunately there are too many left-wing complaints, too.

[Paladin]

74. Agreed.

At this point, Obama's words are worth 10 times the going rate, as far as I'm concerned.

[Vogon_Glory]

54. After the number Judicial Watch did on Bill Clinton, I don't, either

After Judicial Watch's and other right-wing organizations' efforts to financially ruin the Clintons, I don't blame former President Obama for protecting his assets by giving paid speeches, lest the psychos try to ruin him, too.

[Mr. Sparkle]

55. i dont get it either ...

Jobs for ex-Presidents are quite limited, giving speeches are one way to earn a living and still have influence in society.

[prayin4rain]

56. Agreed, this is ridiculous. nt

[NurseJackie]

58. Neither do I. And I question the MOTIVES or the SINCERITY of those who do...

... I keep asking myself "what's their angle?" and "what are they trying to accomplish?"

But more telling is when I ask myself "who does it harm the most?" and "who does it benefit?"... then things start to become very clear.

Unfortunately, the most obvious answers to my questions end up making me very angry.

[Coventina]

59. Yeah, why is he supposed to be the first one in modern history that doesn't?

The man guided the world through 8 very difficult years.

He's earned every penny he ever gets.

[OregonBlue]

60. It has the added bonus of making the White Supremacists extra, extra crazy!!!

[barbtries]

63. he does have to make a living now

and his presence is his greatest asset. i never blamed the Clintons either. Palin on the other hand, i could never quite get behind her being paid to speak for obvious reasons.

[Orsino]

64. If his speech isn't secret, I might not, either.

There would be questions as to whether this is some kind of quid pro quo, so we should probably watch anyone who gets this sort of payday. But he was a freaking president, and one who might choose to donate part of that check to a good cause.

Context is all.

[L. Coyote]

66. Who is footing the bill?

[George II]

76. How can one POSSIBLY connect Obama's speaking engagements to trump's tax cuts? Ridiculous.

[L. Coyote]

78. That's why it is so funny. Or not so funny.

The guys footing the bill foot no bills, just suck up other people's money for a living. And that is what we call dark humor. The darker, the funnier.

Have you seen "The Birth of Advertising"? Same genre and target.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6gBy1kGztSM/SbhjPAQIx0I/AAAAAAAAAeM/Fl5UwYPFDz4/s400/B.+Kliban+19.jpg

[mfcorey1]

69. I and many others are with you! Go for more Obama!

[Lee-Lee]

70. I find it obscene that anyone would get. $400,000 for an hour speech

But as long as that is how the game is played I have no problem with him playing it along with everyone else.

[SHRED]

100. So...

...it's okay to sacrifice principles as long as everyone else is "getting theirs"?

It's not like he needs the money.

[BainsBane]

101. How do you know that?

He had a net worth of $1.3 million when he entered the Oval Office. His money was in a blind trust during his presidency. He doesn't have a job, and he has two kids to put through college. How long do you think that money will last?

[SHRED]

113. Fair enough

Let me rephrase that.

He doesn't need their money.

The world is his oyster now. So many other avenues for him to make money yet...

[BainsBane]

124. You don't own him. His life is his own, not yours.

It's also obvious that any work he took would result in condemnation since the entire purpose is to assail him, while celebrating those born into extreme inherited wealth, as your other post in this thread makes clear. If he took a job at a law firm, we'd hear how that was an outrage. If he took a seat on a corporate board, they would pillory him. Meanwhile, we see one excuse after another for those who use current public office to enrich themselves, excuses for Hollywood "revolutionaries" who sit on $50 million while pretending to abhor wealth. The hypocrisy is off the charts.

This is the exact shit that led the self-righteous refusal to vote Democrat in the GE and ensure that a thieving billionaire would become president.

I don't buy any of it. Not for a minute.

[SHRED]

130. Of course I don't own him

I'm not a Blue Dog Dem and I never will be.

[BainsBane]

138. Non sequitur

and Still ignoring the glaring contradiction about FDR.

[SHRED]

139. We disagree

I don't think his paid speaking gig with those jackals was good from a man who has stated he wants to help shape the Democratic Party going forward.
You claim I hate him which I don't.
I voted for Hillary and endorsed her OBTW.

Let's leave it alone okay?

[BainsBane]

144. You are still ignoring the contradiction of celebrating FDR

Last edited Fri Apr 28, 2017, 09:39 PM - Edit history (1)

You won't even address it. That speaks volumes.

It was you who pointed to your anger at Obama as justifying your comparing him unfavorably to a man born to incredible wealth and privilege, while pretending you did so out of some opposition to the wealthy elite. It's stunning.

I will bring up the hypocrisy about celebrating the extremely wealthy and pillorying those who are not every time I see it because it needs to be called out. Every time I see any of you talk about how great FDR was or FDR values, I plan to point out exactly what it is you are promoting. The fact you refuse to reflect on the that hypocrisy says you don't care, which means there is no opposition to the wealthy elite at all. The target is a man born black and poor. That is unacceptable, while being born into inherited wealth is better. Working as a Wall Street financier means FDR is a hero, but Obama taking money for a speech at a conference sponsored by Wall Street financiers is unacceptable. The problem isn't Wall Street wealth. It's that Obama wasn't born into it. Fucking incredible. Meanwhile, we are supposed to accept a far wealthier man to head the party.

Hell will freeze over before I take lessons on morality from people who continually advance mind boggling double standards. I can't lose enough brain cells to fall for that weak, transparent game.

[Tarheel_Dem]

155. I think your post ends that exchange once & for all. And Bravo!

[YOHABLO]

136. He just signed a book deal worth $65 million dollars.

[BainsBane]

137. What was his advance?

Perhaps you all should set up a tribunal by which you grant or deny him permission to earn money?

[Pathwalker]

103. I love it. I hope he makes a LOT of money!

Still missing him...

[JI7]

161. sacraficing principles ? he is getting money for giving a speech. he is probably THE BEST

speaker out there .

[Renew Deal]

72. Neither do I

[stonecutter357]

75. It's Envy , Jealousy and a lot of russian trolling..

[montanto]

77. shoot me too.

Not going after this red herring.

[SHRED]

79. I'm disappointed

He doesn't owe us a thing...correct.

I just hate the optics of this.

[KPN]

84. I agree. Obama's just doing what past Presidents before him have done.

Hard to blame him for taking advantage of an opportunity most of us would find difficult to turn down -- especially after retirement or post elected official life. At the same time, the optics are bad.

It sucks he is in this position though. Bill was never put there, nor GW. But it is emblematic of the major problem with our "democracy" today -- no question.

[SHRED]

97. I think many of us Democrats...

...have never been comfortable with his drift towards the corporate right following his election in 08.

It's a sore spot into which this pours salt in my opinion.

[George II]

94. The "optics" are what one makes the optics. I'm not disappointed at all.

[SHRED]

99. Good for you

My response above details mine, and other's, "optics;.

[kcr]

153. Yes, it's so concern troll. The optics only exist because of those objecting.

The Don't-Like-the-Optics crowd can solve their own problem, easily.

[Fla Dem]

83. What's the big deal was my reaction as soon as I heard there was an uproar by some over this

Private citizen earning a living. Should he not speak to corporate people at all? Thus not get his message out to those that need it most? Is the $400,000 too much for some people? He should have done it for less? For nothing? What amount would be acceptable to some people? $100, $1,000 $100,000? He will obviously be in demand. He was a popular president, still has high popularity and is an outstanding speaker. $400,000, if that's what the hosts are willing to pay why should he take less.

I am more interested in what he will say at the health care event sponsored by Wall Street bank Cantor Fitzgerald. If he educates the Wall Streeters about the needs for affordable health insurance and Health care then good for him.

[KPN]

86. Obama's just doing what past Presidents before him have done.

Hard to blame him for taking advantage of an opportunity most of us would find difficult to turn down -- especially after retirement or post elected-official life. At the same time, the optics ARE bad.

It sucks he is in this position though. Bill was never put there, nor GW, GHW, Reagan. But it is emblematic of the major problem with our "democracy" today -- no question.

[lunamagica]

87. Neither fo I. n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

96. Me either

Given the gravity of the situation with Trump, Russia, NK, etc. I don't know how anybody has the time or luxury to worry about THIS. I was really disappointed to see Elizabeth Warren speaking out about this. I mean, really?

[Chimichurri]

98. It's a canard. Don't fall for it

We must ignore the nonsense and stay laser focused on Trump/Russia

[AngryAmish]

102. Who funds you rules you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

108. In a capitalist nation the more money you have the more free you are.

A wage slave couldn't talk a fraction of the shit Donald trump talks and keep his or her job.

[AngryAmish]

109. Why is someone outside of public office worth 400k?

What makes a speaker worth their fee?

1. They are interesting and fun. Comics.

2. You can learn something or at least allow the attendees to act like they are learning something. Professional Education or TED Talks.

3. The speaker can help you.

The worry is not 1 or 2 here. There is a bit of 1 and 2 here but the worry is 3.

For good or ill Obama leads the Democratic party right now. His hand picked choice runs the DNC. His help can make or break candidates. So if he is friendly to a business that can help them down the line.

And if that does not concern you, then ok.

But only the purposefully obtuse or criminally naive think otherwise.

[bettyellen]

127. Obama leads the Dem party now?!? It appears these accusations are to knock him

Off a throne that's only in some people's imagination.
Foolish. Sick of this shit.

[SHRED]

104. I think in doing this

Obama has confirmed for the left leaning wing of the Democratic Party that he was never the FDR type Democrat that we'd hoped for.

I think we can all agree that his steady hand at the helm was good for this country it's just that many of us had hoped for more challenge regarding the wealthy elite that are ruining this country.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred. ~FDR

[BainsBane]

106. True, he wasn't born into great wealth like FDR

He was born to a low-income, single mother. FDR never had to work to survive. Never. Not a day in his life. You hoped to challenge the wealthy elite by putting them back in power? That's why you compare him unfavorably to FDR?

Truly incredible.

And of course FDR presided over Jim Crow. He knew how to keep undesirables like Obama in their place so they never had an opportunity to rise out of poverty and certainly never to be president. Those were the good old days.

[SHRED]

115. I respect your opinion

Many of us were stunned when during the heat of the Wall St induced economic meltdown that the likes of Timothy Geithner and others were given a front seat at the table by Obama.
Very little accountability ensued thereafter for those who tore up this country.
Now he shakes hands with them.

If you can't understand my opinion and what it's based in then so be it.

[BainsBane]

122. Are you going to address your celebration of an American aristrocrat

born into inherited wealth as a foil against a man who has to work for a living? What exactly do you think the principle is there?

If you think Roosevelt didn't employ men with with connections to finance and wealth, you have no idea what you're talking about.

You don't like Obama. Point made. He's out of office. You don't have to worry about how he earns a living or that he does--as opposed to living off abundant inherited wealth. Let's not pretend there is any principle at work here. Your reference to FDR makes clear that wealth and connections to Wall Street isn't a concern at all.

[betsuni]

149. +1

[Gothmog]

107. I have no trouble either

[TNLib]

110. I hope he makes lots of money

He deserves it! He did exceptionally well at one of the hardest jobs in the world.

[SHRED]

117. I do also

But why this way?

He had said he will continue to be involved with the Democratic Party to get young people involved and encourage more activism for social justice. I applaud this. What I'm wondering is how does rubbing shoulders with those ruining this country help?

[Mountain Mule]

129. I will say that you do have a point

Wall Street is doing its best to destroy democracy in the name of greed. If it weren't for all the other horrific things going on, I might be more concerned over what sort of message Obama may be sending by accepting speaking engagements with Wall Street billionaire CEO's. But we don't know what the words of his talk will be about. Maybe he is going to challenge them for their vile actions. I know, I know. I doubt if that will happen, too. So yes, I wish Obama would have been more of a progressive of the Bernie style, but he was still an outstanding president and I don't think he's going to sell us down the river for the sake of the almighty dollar.

[SHRED]

135. He was an outstanding President

When I critique his Blue Dog tendencies I catch Hell here from some.
It comes with the territory.

I love his personality and him as a person but I am not happy with some of his decisions. For instance I wish he would have "found his shoes" and supported organized labor march. And a public option...but I'll stop at these two because there's no point now.

Some here can't seem to understand this or separate Obama the person from his political decisions. If we criticise his politics it means we despise him. Nothing is further from the truth.

[sheshe2]

116. I have no problem with it.

None! I say go for it Obama!

[herding cats]

125. I have zero problem with this.

I wish him the best and I hope he uses the money well.

[chillfactor]

132. me either

he has more intelligent things to say then the orange one does.

[YOHABLO]

134. It's not about being paid for speeches, it's about who he's taking the money from.

[tirebiter]

140. It's not like he was being paid to speak to RT

So he's just more like Vernon Jordan than Malcolm X. A Black Man who isn't free but quite expensive to them that can pay and then goes out and gives free speeches to those that can't.

[thegoose]

143. Steve Kornacki on MSNBC

is clutching the pearls about it but is ANYONE in the flipping media addressing the blatant, open thieving and grifting the entire Dump family is doing?

Jesus!

[lordsummerisle]

146. I'm just wondering why

anyone would pay anyone $400,000 to make a speech. Do these Wall Street firms have money to burn? $400k is an absolutely incredible amount of money for an hour's work for many of us (ok, a few extra hours to write the speech). And who sets this fee? Did the firm approach Obama and he said I'll do it for $800k and they said they'd give him $400k? Or did they offer $200k and he came back with $400k?
I agree with many of the others that he should be justly compensated but I can't wrap my head around these fees...

[hatrack]

147. Right there with you . . .

He worked his ass of for eight years and did a pretty damn good job.

He'll be doing both paid and unpaid speeches in the future.

So what?

[tammywammy]

150. I couldn't care less about Obama's speaking fees.

He's no longer in public office and will never hold public office again.

[we can do it]

154. Me either. Sick of BS

[VOX]

156. No problem w/this. Obama had to suck up shit like Jackie Robinson.

Hell, it's damn near combat pay for the untold buckets of shit he had to put up with. The "You lie!" insult endured is worth $400K alone.

[PoliticalPie]

160. I am hoping he will use that cash to start up a voter registering, assisting to obtain those

voter ID kind of program. I don't see the Democratic party out in every county in every state working to remove voters and register new voters the way the Koch network has been doing for several years now.

[mvd]

162. He's now highly paid by them

Not that I see this as the worst thing ever - his inattention to the mortgage crisis really affected me more than a speech will. But the firm is not spotless like some say. They need to be ruthless to be a big Wall St. film. And many INSIDE the company didn't like the settlement with the airline that they did.

I'm not just blaming Obama. To his credit, it is more of a health care speech. And unfortunately it has been done a lot before by people in our party.

Maybe he will back out and everything will be moot. We'll see.

[fleabiscuit]

163. Wow, I get a lot of deja vu feelings when I read about politics. It's not the banks.

When can 400K seem like chump change?
President and Mrs. Obama are going to write books. Reports say the bid for the rights to the books was won somewhere between $30 million to $60 million.

Bill Clinton and HRC reported gaving $7million to charity just the last 3 years of their returns alone. They are absolutely transparent. The last year was down about $2 million, HRC probably helped self fund her campaign. Hillary gave some speeches too. So?

It's not banks, it's the system.

Now according to the disciples $15 is a good minimum wage? Why? For who? And a question I'm really pondering... Why does the Oracle smoke in The Matrix?