Why did Hillary launch herself onto the corporate speaking circuit

[cali]

Last edited Mon Jan 25, 2016, 04:01 PM - Edit history (1)

virtually the moment she stepped down? Or to put it another way how much money is enough? By 2013, the year Hillary stepped down as SoS, Bill Clinton had made 106 million dollars from speaking engagements. Hillary knew that she'd be running for president, but either didn't foresee that this would be a problem or thought that it would be a manageable one.

In any case, considering she was and is certainly aware of her past troubles regarding money she's made, it seems a bit lacking in judgment.

once you have, 100 million, why put yourself in the position she put herself in? 100 million sets you and your children and your great grandchildren and their children up, quite nicely.

[virtualobserver]

1. so that they would feel comfortable hyper-funding her SuperPACS

It was a reassurance tour.

[Eric J in MN]

2. If she cared more about becoming president than about short-term money

...then she'd have just done free charity work from when she resigned as Secretary of State in 2013 to when she launched her presidential campaign last year.

[cascadiance]

7. It's more than just getting money for herself or her campaign...

It is also getting the corporate money people to spend money on campaigns AGAINST her opposition when she shows more "commitment" to them by taking money speaking to them. This funds the anonymous Citizen United enabled pro-Hillary campaigns and disinformation campaigns against a candidate like Bernie, not just directly funding her official campaign.

[Eric J in MN]

9. Maybe that was her strategy.

I think that if she'd only done free charity work from mid-2013 to early-2015 that she'd be gliding to the White House now.

[cali]

12. So do I.

[draa]

29. I would vote for her if she would donate every penny to a US children's charity fighting poverty.

All $3B from her foundation and all personal wealth as well. I would gladly vote for her with that type commitment.

Since that's not happening it's Bernie Sanders for me.

[tularetom]

3. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Plus $

Plus the ability to rub elbows with the people that Bill Clinton has always admired.

[cali]

5. Okay, but why? They were already enormously wealthy.

Didn't she get that it would come back to haunt her? My theory is just old fashioned hubris.

[Attorney in Texas]

6. That's like asking why an addict overdoses when he or she has already had enough to be high

[draa]

30. This.

[tularetom]

18. They crave acceptance by the uber wealthy and feel that they need even more money to truly be

part of the club. I believe this is more true of Bill than it is of her, but she isn't averse to hanging with the 0.01% herself.

Playing golf with movie stars and pro athletes, and kicking back with Wall Street big shots in the Hamptons appeals to them, and that lifestyle requires lots of money.

However, you are also correct that there is a certain level of hubris, arrogance, whatever involved. After Bill Clinton got caught lying under oath and walked away without any consequences, it isn't hard to believe he thought he could get away with anything. The problem is that unlike Bill, Hillary is not a convincing liar, she's just a liar.

[democrank]

4. Um.....because she`s a real progressive?

Because way down deep she really prefers rubbing elbows with the little guys?

[kennetha]

8. Think about it

from her perspective and her declared intention to be the president of the struggling, the striving, the successful. She's invited to speak at conferences of innovators and builders (by GS) and a conference -- can't remember what it's called -- for financial advisors who are clients of GS (not employees, not shareholders, not investors, not executives of GS). Probably not too many in those audiences are struggling or serve the struggling. Many in the one audience are strivers, many in the other audience serve the striving and the successful. She wants to be seen not as a bogeyman by the striving and successful, but as a person who brings all -- the struggling, the striving, and successful -- together in away that serves all and harmonizes their competing interests. That's what politics is about, at least in a pluralistic democracy. It's not about building a dictatorship of the non-monied. Good luck with that agenda.

[cali]

11. Wow. "A dictatorship of the non-moneyed". Something that has never existed.

Quite the absurd strawman boogeyman you've erected. And quite the inchoate post you've created.

The plain fact is that the very wealthy in this country don't have the need for advocacy. The poor and the middle classes do. And Bernie is most certainly not advocating a French revolution. He's saying the very wealthy and corporations should pay their fare share. Or as my industrialist father used to say, he was able to build a successful manufacturing business, in large part because of the stability and infrastructure in this country.

Let me guarantee you one thing: the very wealthy in the U.S. are under no threat. They'll do just fine no matter who is elected.

[kennetha]

13. I think you missed the point

It's not that the monied "need an advocate" it's just that in a pluralistic democracy their interests have to be reconciled with competing interest. They can't be shut out of the conversation. Sanders sometimes sounds like he wants to just shut the striving and successful out of the conversation and just dictate to them how things should be. So do many of his followers.

[cali]

15. Oh, i didn't miss the point. What competing interests

do you think the very wealthy have?

[kennetha]

17. The competing interests of the monied and the non-monied.

That's what I was talking about.

[cali]

20. Yes, I got.that. what are those competing interests?

You can't tell me, because they don't exist. No one is proposing confiscating wealth let alone tumbrels full of the wealthy to the guillotine.

[kennetha]

23. Lots of people would regard

52% top marginal tax rates as "confiscation" Especially if you add up some of the other tax increases Bernie is proposing. Not saying who is right or wrong on that one.

Lots of employers would balk at a 15/hr minimum wage. So would lots of economist. As antithetical to growth and job creation.

[cali]

27. I suggest you read this

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/eisenhower-obama-wealthy-americans-mitt-romney-pay-taxes/story?id=15387862


And the 15 dollar minimum raise is a proposal over several.years. I do find your concern for the wealthy touching though. My father, we're he alive.would have a good laugh. I bring up my dad, because even back in the seventies, his biggest concern was growing inequality and the vanishing of manufacturing. And growing up as I did, I understand the extreme insulation of the wealthy and the lack of insight that goes with it.

[kennetha]

28. Actually, neither concerned nor not-concerned

point is that politics has to reconcile competing interests. That's just a neutral, non-emotional fact. And if you appear to just set yourself over against the striving and the successful, as HRC puts it, rather than trying to bridge divides and bring all around the table, well... good luck with that.

[cali]

31. My point is that the claim that the ultra wealthy have needs

that are as vital of those in the middle class (competing interests) and the poor, is a republican fiction. And no, I don't set myself against the striving and successful. I wouldn't have a trust fund without them. I do know quite a bit about the wealthy though, and many are financially successful without any effort of their own.

[kennetha]

33. needs and interest aren't the same.

maybe the "ultra" wealthy don't need all their money --- I'm pretty sure that they would admit that they don't -- but they still have an "interest" in holding onto it and doing as they like with it. To some extent, their interest is legitimate.

You could try to confiscate what they don't "need." That's what a dictatorship of the non-monied would try to do, I am sure. But again, that simply isn't in the cards in a system like ours.

[cali]

38. So taxing is confiscating? Baloney.

[kennetha]

40. I didn't say ALL

taxing was confiscatory. But taking what you have and leaving you with only what I say you need would be seen by many as confiscatory.

[ljm2002]

34. What a ridiculous post...

...especially the phrase "dictatorship of the non-monied".

Good grief.

Right now we have a dictatorship of the monied (aka "oligarchy&quot . Yes, really, we do. But you don't have to take my word for it:

http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4

The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded.

After sifting through nearly 1,800 U.S. policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile), and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the U.S. is dominated by its economic elite.

The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

Researchers concluded that U.S. government policies rarely align with the preferences of the majority of Americans, but do favour special interests and lobbying organizations: "When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose."

Trying to spin giving speeches for a quarter million a pop as some sort of populist outreach is both truly hilarious and truly vomit-inducing.

[bowens43]

10. Shes an oppertunist who will do anything for power

[MineralMan]

14. Public Speaking is a career.

Lots of people engage in it, often between other occupations. Politicians are well known people who have been in positions of considerable power. Many people want to hear what they have to say, and are willing to pay to listen to it. Depending on how powerful the person has been or is likely to be, they will pay plenty to the people who have the most interesting things to say.

At one time, early in the days of personal computing and continuing through its peak. I was recognized as an expert on one particular class of personal computing software. As a reviewer and columnist for one of the largest magazines dealing with that stuff, I had a specialized knowledge set and some opinions on where that class of software should be heading.

So, I was asked to speak on the subject many times. Sometimes, it was at industry conferences. Sometimes it was at business conferences where that type of software was in wide use. Sometimes, it was even for companies that produced that kind of software, who were interested in learning what I thought was important to offer in that type of software and how people used it.

I got paid for those speaking events. Hardly on the scale that a President or Secretary of State could command, but I got paid. I got a fee, along with travel expenses, meals and lodging. Was I influenced by getting paid by a company whose software I would be reviewing later? Not at all. In fact, I was influencing those companies by informing them about what was needed and how the software should function. They were paying me to tell them something that I knew, not to influence me.

Political speakers often do the same thing. They tell their audiences things they think those audiences should know and tell them what they think those audiences should do. Much of the time, in my own speaking, what I had to say was ignored or was sometimes already in process. But, I was asked to speak and I spoke. I told them what I thought. What they did with that was not the point. They asked to hear my thoughts and paid me to provide them.

Public speaking doesn't really carry with it any obligation to the organizations who pay a person to speak. You can say what you want. They can listen or ignore. The payment gets them nothing but your ideas.

I don't do that any more. I'm no longer a public figure or recognized as an expert on much of anything. I've moved on. Did what I say have an effect? Sometimes. Did that payment affect me? Not at all. I was the one telling people what I thought.

[cali]

16. Your personal experience is hardly relevant and you

addressed nothing in the op.

[MineralMan]

19. Its relevance is whatever people think it is.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

[cali]

22. Presumably, you were not extremely wealthy at

the time you did speaking gigs.

[MineralMan]

24. If I was, I wasn't aware of it.

I'm still not. I had some influence, though. Oh, well...maybe in my next reincarnation...

[Punkingal]

21. Greed and hubris.

[ReasonableToo]

25. My guess: share the wealth with future (now current) endorsers and super delegates

[darkangel218]

26. As you well know, for some, no amount of money or power is ever enough.

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. Some would prefer that she stay home, bake cookies and have teas.

[DFW]

35. Anyone who wants to pay me $250,000 to talk to them for an hour gets their wish

I haven't the faintest idea what I'd SAY to a bunch of suits for an hour, but if they have that kind of money to toss my way, I'll read from "Fun With Dick and Jane" if I have to.

[cali]

37. Would you speak at AIG or Goldman Sachs, knowing how deeply unpopular

they are, if you knew that you were going to be running for the presidency?

Would you do it if you were already worth $100 million?

[DFW]

39. I'm not running for the presidency, and I'm not worth $100 million

So that's not a problem I'm confronted with. Apparently, being worth $100 million isn't Hillary's "problem," either. It's Bill that's worth $80 million, and she's worth somewhere north of $30 million.

And you know what? Sure, I'd read from Dick and Jane to Goldman Sachs or AIG for an hour, even if I WERE worth $100 million. The Vermont Food Bank or the American Cancer Society could always use that kind of cash.

[libdem4life]

36. After commenting on the thread about pre-coached and "appropriate" questions,

during her talks and whatever...likely she has no problem answering un-coached questions from this crowd. Actually, she knows the questions and the answers before hand...has for a long, long time.