I'm so GLAD Obama took the going rate for his speech really early on.

[LAS14]

This ought to go some way to putting Hillary's fees in context. The point is not to reject the going rate for your talents, but what you do with the money! Look at both the Obamas' and Clintons' charitable giving for good role models.

[Ohioblue22]

1. thom Hartmann says this is a bad idea

[OKNancy]

2. he's an idiot

[OnDoutside]

16. +1000 And a willing participant in Russian Propaganda TV.

[Eliot Rosewater]

51. You can say it, I cant.

[BeyondGeography]

20. Elizabeth Warren appears to agree with Thom Hartmann

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/04/27/elizabeth-warren-says-she-troubled-wall-street-speaking-fee-for-obama/H4XczWw1yYMyMSAYAiGoyN/story.html

Is she an idiot, too?

[OKNancy]

22. on this subject yes, but she wasn't obnoxious about it

Warren was asked about the controversy during an interview about her new book on the SiriusXM radio show, “Alter Family Politics.”

“I was troubled by that,” she said.

That was the extent of her comments aimed directly at Obama. She quickly launched into a broader discussion of her views of the corrupting influence of money in Washington.

She can be criticized.

[BeyondGeography]

23. So can Obama for deciding to give this speech for $400k

For instance, I'll be thinking about how annoying I find this decision of his the next time one of his critics tells me he didn't jail any bankers because he wanted their money someday (which happened just this morning, actually).

[OKNancy]

27. If someone said that, then they are idiots too

I'm of the opinion that he should get paid if he speaks.
I don't think he should do it for free.

I have a feeling it's the amount, not the payment.

[BeyondGeography]

30. It's who's paying

If it were the Hardware Show in Chicago nobody would be talking about it.

[Cha]

107. Just in: A new statement from Obama spokesman Eric Schultz,

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Maybe hear what President Obama has to say first..

[BeyondGeography]

117. He just made $400K for an A&E interview with Doris Kearns Goodwin and nobody will ever care

Taking Wall St. money is different, because it opens him up to charges of hypocrisy. Fox broke this story, which means that as soon as Cantor Fitzgerald sealed that deal someone on their side of it called them. Why is that? Cantor was doing Wall St.'s bidding to make Obama look bad, IMO. Unfortunately, he bit and they succeeded.

[Cha]

118. Sorry, President Obama does Not "look bad".

[BeyondGeography]

120. It isn't worth the grief he's getting, that's clear to me at least

Obama is still contractually able to pull out of the event with the mid-size New York based investment bank if he so wishes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/barack-obama-wall-street-journal-speech-earning-400000-us-president-nearly-half-million-a7700841.html

Hope he does.

[Cha]

122. People need to hear his speech first.. I trust President

Obama.. always have since he earned it.

[LAS14]

28. She's not an idiot, for sure, but I don't agree with her here.

Why troubled? Does she think Obama's going to.... uh.... I dunno what.

[m-lekktor]

49. yep a recording of her comments has come through my facebook newsfeed about 3 times

in the last half hour!

[Squinch]

58. True.

[Trial_By_Fire]

78. Actually, Thom Hartman is a very intelligent person...

And he is absolutely pro Democrat, pro America, and a truly cool and caring person.

Why are people here attacking Thom?

[Cha]

115. He's a hypocrite.. he takes money from RT

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[ProfessorPlum]

131. They may not have the unity of the progressive and Democratic

Movement at the top of their agendas, if you see what I mean.

[George II]

154. And you have an inside track on others' agendas?

[FSogol]

156. Is the rest of the gang at RT "pro America" too?

BTW, it is Pro-American and that's what we call a "tell"

[Trial_By_Fire]

160. Thanks for the laugh!

Had to laugh at your 'tell' comment as it is a real 'tell'!

For the record, we can write what we want, the way we want. To suggest that
the only way to write 'pro American' is 'Pro-American' is silly at best.

Now, I don't watch RT, not even Thom on RT, so I have no idea. But what I do
know is that Thom Hartmann on RT delivers the progressive Democratic viewpoint.

Has anybody figured out here that delivering the Dem viewpoint, even on RT, is a good thing?

[Adrahil]

184. Because he is being willingly used..

By Putin's Propaganda arm. He is is no position to call anyone out for whom they take money from.

[BannonsLiver]

144. +1

Comrade Hartman

[pnwmom]

4. Thom Hartmann is literally a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda,

with his own show on the Russian government owned RT.

[phylny]

6. I disagree with your statement about Thom and RT,

but I also disagree with Thom's objection to Obama getting paid the market rate for a speech.

[brush]

9. I listened to Hartman today on this. He is against Obama doing the speech for 400k. An ex-pres...

Last edited Thu Apr 27, 2017, 07:07 PM - Edit history (2)

can command that amount. He has unique insight and knowledge and is worth it. Let's see what he does with it. He may donate it to a charity or foundation but that is his business.

I used to be a fan of Hartman but him being on RT and today he was doing the in-fashion talking points about how sorry the Dem party is and why we lost the election, on and on with how we've lost the white working class and blah blah blah with no mention at all about how Comey and Putin helped the repugs steal the election.

He's as full of it as the rest of the media crowd that are constantly mouthing those talking points while ignoring that Hillary actually won the election, which was stolen.

And Hartman is not stupid. He knows that. Guess he got the memo about how to continue trashing Hillary and the Dem party for "losing" the election and the WWC.

[happy feet]

31. +1

[FSogol]

159. +1. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

11. Hartmann is a $paid$ mouthpiece of the Russian government's "news" outlet. Full stop. nt

[phylny]

15. I listen to him almost daily.

I don't watch his RT program, but listen on satellite. I have not heard him spouting any Russian talking points. I have heard him support Bernie until the primaries were open (while also saying that he would support the winner of the primary), support Clinton, argue that the Democratic party had its most progressive platform since FDR, mainly because of Bernie, and I heard him generally praise Obama.

I don't see him as a paid mouthpiece. Can you cite examples? Thanks.

[OnDoutside]

17. Considering what RT and Putin did to the Democratic Party nominee, and other Democratic

candidates up for election on Nov 8, if he wants to retain an ounce of credibility and integrity, he needs to leave RT immediately. You cannot have a mental reservation about what Russia did, and retain your credibility.

[phylny]

36. So right now there are no examples of him being a mouthpiece for Russia. n/t

[OnDoutside]

37. The point is that by taking the rasPutin rouble he has placed monetary consideration above integrity

That's capitalism for ya I guess.

[phylny]

166. Capitalism, yes, and perhaps not the best judgment.

That, to me at least, is different than being a mouthpiece for Putin/Russia.

[Chiyo-chichi]

148. There was a long thread on this just last week.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028954771

Looks like you posted in it, actually.

You didn't seem to address the OP, though, who said Hartmann was dismissive of reports that Putin had put together a think tank to disrupt & influence the election in Trump's favor.

That said, I don't know whether Hartmann was putting down this report and deflecting blame to Fox News. I don't listen to him anymore. I used to occasionally. Not since he became affiliated with RT.

In any case, there's an example for you.

[phylny]

167. Thanks, I recall posting in it.

I'm not in any way affiliated with Thom, and I listen to him fairly regularly. I've heard him consistently asking for an investigation into Trump's ties with Russia (probably not a Russian talking point), consistently supporting Democrats/Bernie (also not a Russian talking point), lambasting the Republicans/Trump (not a talking point). I didn't respond to the OP in that thread because without hearing the segment or reading a transcript, I am taking someone's interpretation as fact. It may well be an accurate interpretation.

I am sorta tired of Democrats eating their own. Yes, I used to like Ed Schultz, until he said things over and over that made me understand he was not on our side. I no longer listen to him or even pay attention to him. On the other hand, Thom says too many things in support of our cause/against the Republicans and Trump to make me believe that one thing he may have said makes him a mouthpiece for Russia and Putin.

[brush]

168. Spot on.

I listen to him in the car sometimes and I wonder — he comes across as this earnest progressive with all the key phrasings that appeal to the left, yet he sits there taking money from Russia after what they did in our election.

IMO there is no squaring that if you have a conscience.

With his credentials he could get his show on another outlet easily.

I don't get it and therefore no longer trust him.

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. You would think after the Intel reports came out that Russia interfered in our democratic process...

that Hartmann & all the other traitors on Russia's propaganda outlet would have left in di$gu$t. One would think that Hartmann would be as brave as he calls on "Democrats" to be. But alas, he's a phony & hypocrite. Remember this?

Now that takes guts.

[phylny]

35. So he didn't leave. Is this proof that he's somehow

advancing a Russian agenda?

[pnwmom]

59. If he doesn't want to be a paid mouthpiece for Russia, then stop taking their money.

Find an outlet for his views that isn't connected to Russia.

[mcar]

82. It shouldn't be that difficult

[phylny]

89. I'm honestly confused.

Is he somehow spouting Russian talking points? That, to me, is the definition of a "paid mouthpiece for Russia."

[Tarheel_Dem]

66. You are the company you keep. Ever hear that? Hartmann's presence legitimizes RT to the extent....

that he rarely has a good thing to say about the party that was defeated in last year's election. Russia's meddling in our most sacrosanct civic process (and they're doing the same thing in other Western nations) should be enough for any American to say FU to RT, but not Thom Hartmann. Gee, I wonder why? Can the money really be worth selling out your allies & "principles"? To hear Hartmann bash Obama, or any other Dem, for taking money from Wall St, while he pockets rubles from a hostile nation is beyond hypocritical.

[phylny]

88. It appears you keep changing the criteria.

Is he a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda or you just don't like that he broadcasts on RT?

I'm going to guess if MSNBC or CNN gave him the opportunity to broadcast nightly, he would. They do not. He's not big enough.

I get people are pissed off that he broadcasts on RT, but I've been listening to Thom for years, and I have 1) heard him speak his opinion, which appears to be honest, and 2) he's been a staunch defender of Democrats, of the Democratic presidential candidates, and a voice against right-wing hypocrisy.

[Tarheel_Dem]

91. My criteria never "changed". He's a traitorous, money grubbing mouthpiece for a country that....

seems intent on destroying democracy worldwide. Be it far from me to tell you where to consume your opinions, but much like Cenk Ugyr & Ed Scultz, Hartmann has chosen $$$$$ over principle.

[phylny]

92. Okay. I listen to the man's words. You define "mouthpiece"

as something I can't define.

[Eliot Rosewater]

54. That is what he would do if he didnt have an agenda that was akin to Putin's, right?

[Tarheel_Dem]

84. I think so. And I'm waiting for someone to figure out Jill Stein's relationship with Russia too.

Not enough questions have been asked, but I have a feeling Rachel might actually "go there" someday.

[brush]

38. Read post #9. Today was a good example of his not so subtle undermining.

[phylny]

41. So far, one thing.

Other examples?

See, I get people are PO'd about him being on RT, but as I've said, I listen to him take right wingers to task and support the Democratic party. I'm really not convinced that he's a mouthpiece for Russia. Not one person has given me an example where he peddled Russian or Republican talking points.

I get his objection to Obama taking money - I don't agree with him, but I get it. It smacks of opportunism. There is, however, nothing illegal about him doing so.

[brush]

52. Just being on RT is acceptable to you? Not me. The money must be good because Hartman can surely...

get picked up by another outlet.

He's quietly normalizing being on RT as many in the Media are normalizing trumps outrages.

And trashing Dems, if you think about it, helps with Putin's agenda which is to help trump.

Not good.

[Eliot Rosewater]

56. Who did he meet with weekly and then BASH the democratic party for an hour

each time for a decade?

Weird, but you see I put 2 + 2 together and I figure things out.

[brush]

69. Exactly.

[pnwmom]

60. He's taking money from Russia for his views. Russia doesn't pay people to be on RT

unless Russia views them as useful (useful idiots or just plain useful) to their cause.

He should end his relationship with RT. Then he will have more credibility.

It is the ultimate in irony that the same people will criticize Obama from taking money from American bankers for a speech -- and then try to justify Thom Hartmann for taking money from a US adversary -- the Russian government -- for his broadcasts.

[pnwmom]

57. You have heard him spouting many Russian talking points -- you just don't recognize them.

This complaint about Obama taking money IS a Russian talking point. Russia is attacking the "establishment" in the US from both the left and the right.

And he IS a paid mouthpiece. Literally. He takes money from Russia for his shows, and they are using his message to drive a wedge into the progressive end of the Democratic party -- with success.

If he doesn't want to be a paid mouthpiece for Russia, there's a simple solution -- stop taking money from RT or any other Russian outlet.

[JCanete]

74. no you are going way too far. If something is said that you don't like being said, and it criticizes

people you like, then it is a Russian talking point. That is a problem.

Our media are paid mouthpieces by corporations. multinational in some cases, that could give a rats ass about america. Where do you stand on the rest of our paid mouthpieces?

[pnwmom]

79. It is a Russian talking point when Russia pays people, on its government controlled station,

to criticize American political figures.

Russia is our adversary -- US corporations are not. Now you are echoing Russian talking points. Maybe you've watched too much Thom Hartmann.

[JCanete]

93. oh my fucking God. Of course. I hope no Russian propagandists have ever said the sky is blue.

I haven't watched or listened to Thom very frequently in years, but I know what he used to sound like, and unless you think he sounds differently now, and maybe even go that extra mile and cite evidence, I'm not so sure you have a case here.

Our media by the way, is the propaganda machine that gave us trump. You really think they are on our side? Really? Really?

[pnwmom]

94. Did you read Clint Watts testimony about Active Measures to the Senate Intelligence Committee?

You need to read it in order to understand what Russia is doing with targeting propaganda.

[happy feet]

33. +1

[pnwmom]

46. Then you're disagreeing with a fact. Thom is either a witting or an unwitting participant

in the Russian-government propaganda campaign. So is everyone who works for RT or allows their shows to be broadcast on that network.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

119. And what are people who take $400,000 dollars from Wall Street for an hour's work?

This thread is surreal.

It's literally turned itself on its head defending taking money from Wall Street by accusing another guy as being a paid propagandist for taking money from someone else.

[pnwmom]

121. What is surreal is a Democrat comparing former President Obama's being paid by a Wall Street firm

for a speech about healthcare to Thom Hartman serving as a paid mouthpiece for a Russian propaganda television network.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

142. Yeah, I forgot Putin trashed our economy, defrauded millions of investors,...

... received a trillion dollars in bailouts, foreclosed on 10 million homes, and then proceeded to pay himself more bonus money, in one year after the bailout, than all the minimum wages earnings of all the minimum wage employees in this country. Putin did that.

[pnwmom]

143. Putin just helped put DT and his collection of moles throughout the US govt.

Obama accepted payment for a speech on healthcare.

[LAS14]

62. What is RT?

[pnwmom]

63. Russian Television network, which is state-sponsored. n/t

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

12. What?

You gotta be kiddin' me!

[pnwmom]

47. Clint Watts testified to the Senate about the Russian active measures campaign.

They are targeting people both on the right and on the left for their propaganda, and using people like Thom Hartmann -- whether TH and his followers realize it or not -- in their campaign against the US.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

137. ummmm

I listen to his program enough to know that statement by Watts sounds ludicrous....... it could be an attempt to discredit Hartmann

[pnwmom]

139. He didn't mention TH in particular. it is my conclusion based on the fact that he is paid by

the Russian propaganda station and he has routinely spouted off against Democratic politicians.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

172. Who is paid?

Thom? who pays him, specifically?

[pnwmom]

175. He earns money based on the fact that his show is on the RT platform. That is his choice,

whether or not the payment is somehow laundered through a 3rd party.

[Eliot Rosewater]

53. Better you say it than me...

[JCanete]

73. do better than that. nt

[Trial_By_Fire]

86. No, Thom Hartmann is NOT a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda...

On his radio show, he NEVER spouts Russian propaganda. And
on RT, it is like he is doing his radio show on air.

Hartmann is a very valuable Democratic progressive looking out for America and Americans.

I have listen to Hartmann literally for over 10 years. His viewpoints are more in line with FDR. Period.

[pnwmom]

87. His point about Obama not being justified in taking the speech money is a PERFECT EXAMPLE

of Russian propaganda.

It doesn't have to be fake news to be used in propaganda. Anything that the Russians feels will serve their cause of disrupting our system and driving a wedge between Democrats can be used in their propaganda.

If you take money from Russia television, if you stand on their platform when you are criticizing an American politician, then you are a mouthpiece and part of Russian propaganda -- even if all you are doing is complaining that modern Democrats aren't as good as FDR.

Thom Hartmann should find another outlet for his views.

[Trial_By_Fire]

90. Hartmann's viewpoint on this is...

...that it is 'bad optics'. The Obama's are being paid $95 million (I think that is correct) for
their book deal. Four hundred thousand dollars is now a drop in the bucket for them.

Hartmann might have a valid point on this.

It has nothing to do with 'Russian propaganda'. I think people are too microscopically critical about NOTHING.

[pnwmom]

140. It has everything to do with Russian propaganda. He is a paid mouthpiece for the Russian network.

His point of view serves their purposes, in driving a wedge between progressives and in increasing viewership for their network, so he is useful to them.

[stonecutter357]

5. Thom Hartmann works for a Global Oligarchy's Media .

[pnwmom]

141. Yes, since Russia is a global oligarchy and he works for their media.

[NurseJackie]

10. LOL

[LanternWaste]

14. It certainly is convenient to let radio personalities decide for us.

It certainly is convenient to let radio personalities decide for us.

[mcar]

26. Who?

[JTFrog]

50. The dude who sold out to Russia Today? Who gives a flying fuck what he thinks anymore. nt

[GulfCoast66]

55. A man being paid by Putin???

has the lack of shame to criticize President Obama? RT is owned and run entirely by the Russian government.

Those Russians have always been good at convincing useful idiots to do their bidding undermining their own nations all the while making them feel like national heroes.

Amazing how enough money does the trick.

[Kahuna7]

68. That's nice.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

83. One of my favorite sleeping pills

How much does RT pay him?

[Ohioblue22]

96. idk but I'm surprised at the amount of negative responses..... eom

[CreekDog]

101. so is taking money from RT.com

but I haven't made that point about him

--until now.

[lapucelle]

153. I think working for RT is a bad idea.

Hartmann has no problem cashing their paycheck.

[Vinca]

3. I say good for O. Take the banksters for every dime they're willing to pay.

[elfin]

7. I begrudge him NOTHING for all the travail he and his family have endured

I know he will put any monies he has so rightfully earned to good use to secure the well-being of his family and to free him to pursue other non-profit and very worthy causes to the future benefit of all of us.

[asiliveandbreathe]

8. I wonder what trumps going rate is for speeches....oh, that's right -

he can't....

[treestar]

45. Soon Donald will only be able to command a fee

for going away and Shutting the FU.

[asiliveandbreathe]

48. OMG - where do I send the check????

Any charity you want!!!!

[gratuitous]

13. If you have a fainting couch, quick! Get it on eBay

The market has to be going through the roof for all the concerned commentators who are just overcome by the former President taking a speaking fee for what the market will bear, not one dime of which comes out of the pockets of said commentators.

Any of them remembering when Reagan pocketed a cool $2 million fee right after he left office? Or has that one been lost forever down the Memory Hole?

[3catwoman3]

18. I hope he makes...

...a f*cking fortune.

[DefenseLawyer]

21. President Obama isn't running for office

Just a tiny detail, I realize.

[LAS14]

24. Hillary wasn't running when she gave those speeches either. nt

[LisaM]

34. Another tiny detail!

I'm sure she deserved every penny she got. How is getting money for speeches any different from getting money for writing books?

[loyalsister]

42. riiight

She was considering it, and that is enough to make it a ridiculously stupid mistake. Since 2008, Wall street has been considered a manifestation of corruption to a whole lot of people for very good reason.

[uponit7771]

70. What would be the difference from her getting a forward payment from banks etc for righting a book

... the payments for speeches NEVER EVER bothered me

I don't think she claimed she was thinking about running for anything at the time either.

This line of critique for Clinton has so many double standards its laughable.

[loyalsister]

97. Same difference

I didn't have any problem with her giving the speeches, themselve. But I and anyone else who has been involved with campaigns knows that hanging out with people perceived to be corrupt is a dumb thing to do if one is considering running for office. It doesn't take a lot of political expertise to know that a candidate has to step out and look at themselves from the point of view of voters. She is not politically inept, but probably extremely arrogant to not consider the possibility that something she did might turn some voters off.

Groups like Ready For Hillary and I'm with her had formed long before she gave those speeches. Wouldn't a decent person who had rejected the idea to run make the effort to contact the leadership of those groups to tell them she wasn't going to run? I have no doubt she would have rather than let the members wish and hope and work to the end of electing her president.

[uponit7771]

98. That's if a person saw WS as 100% the problem, if not then that position of hanging out with the ...

... corrupt makes little to no sense

[loyalsister]

99. Were you alive in 2008?

Were you oblivious to the hell Obama caught when the bailouts were used to give bonuses? Speaking of factors other than Wall St., people lost their houses and their lives as they knew them were destroyed, and they couldn't even declare bankruptcy because those laws changed in the 90s.

[uponit7771]

100. Not only alive but worked in finance and knows the root of the issue more than 99.7% of the people

.. out there.

WS was enabled they're not Republicans in and of themselves

[loyalsister]

104. didn't lose your house, or your job, or your retirement fund, or your kids' college fund?

Those losses colored a lot of peoples perceptions and made corruption personal. Surely someone so close to finance has some sympathy for people who got burned and has a clear understanding of why they were angry. The fact that the Clinton name popped up in connection with relevant deregulation and was front and center in the new administration that some felt betrayed by.
If Obama was angry about the bonuses, surely one can comprehend what that meant to someone whose life was completely shaken up.

[uponit7771]

105. Yes, and still know WS well regulated is like any other industry not evil

Seems like what I said upstream is coming to light....

I don't see a well regulated WS as evil I see people who think WS is a God as the bad force

[loyalsister]

124. This exchange has not been about you

It's about people whose lives fell apart, found someone to blame who is politically astute enough that they knew it was happening and that it would make a political race extremely difficult but just went about it as if they were irrelevant.
Democrats who have no empathy mystify me as much as prochoice republicans. Those who proudly espouse superiority yet refuse to see why we get labeled liberal elitists- moreso.

[uponit7771]

145. Maybe I lost the translation here bottom line; not everyone saw WS as the boogyman so Clinton gettin

... getting money from them wasn't a deal breaker seeing she was a moral person and wouldn't sell out for them.

I know some people intimated that she wasn't a moral person but they're cowards mostly and like she said "say it to her face" instead of making these light declarations of what she would or wouldn't do.

People need MORE to stop being cowards

[Caliman73]

149. I agree

I understand the emotional responses given that people lost life savings, retirement, homes, etc... but the reaction is also a symptom of the simplification of messaging. "Wall Street" is seen as a monolith, a singular bad actor, when there are thousands of people making decisions every day, balancing ethical, legal practice with the desire to maximize profit. It is a very complex system and cannot be defined on a bumper sticker.

Part of the problem is that in America, making money, having big expensive stuff, has been set as a standard for success and being important. A lot of us want all that stuff and some of us will bend the rules to get it. Another, bigger problem is that when people get rich, they want to stay rich and they will not only bend the rules, but re-write them to make them legit so that they can keep doing more and then bend those rules. A major problem which was pointed out by the Princeton/Northwestern study is that the wealthiest among us have an outsized influence on policy so that legislation that will make the lives of the majority of the people better has much less chance of passing than legislation that will say, exempt congress from a shitty health bill, or treat investment wealth differently than income from work so that the wealthy, who make their money from the market, pay less in taxes.

Wall Street in basic terms is where people invest money into companies, who use the capital for projects, expansion, r&d, etc... That is what they teach us in high school economy. In reality there are off shore accounts, stock buy backs, derivatives, shorting of stocks, and other practices that make Wall Street look like a casino to those of us who have less experience.

I didn't care that Hillary Clinton gave speeches to Wall Street firms. I think the only miscalculation was in not releasing the transcripts to shut the critics up. When some of them came out and it turned out she was talking about more opportunities for women in finance, it was a big nothing burger, but the "scandal" had already been ingrained in people's minds. I don't care the Barak Obama is giving speeches to a Wall Street firm either. I don't see "Wall Street" as an enemy. I see greedy people who use their influence to cement their profits at our expense as a problem, and that can only be fixed through regulation.

See, that does not fit on a bumper sticker.

[uponit7771]

169. +1

[loyalsister]

155. A lot of people did see it as a deal breaker

and 45 got away with convincing some people he was so rich that he didn't need WS money and would not be beholden to them. She handed him that talking point herself and made it impossible to tap into the anger that people on the unfortunate end of income inequality are feeling. Bernie was not helpful because she wound up coming across as defending it every time she talked about economic indicators that a lot of people didn't feel. She has been on the national scene for the adult lifetimes of a lot of people who have felt that gulf widening. Democrats have not done a very good job of engaging those voters. So, their anger festers and a mean candidate who exploited stereotypes to give them someone to blame knew exactly how to win them over.

People who run for office need to carefully identify their weaknesses and how they might be attacked, because they need the votes from people who don't necessarily admire or even like them. Making it easy for the opposition to paint them as associated with corruption by being secretive about it after the fact reinforced the opportunity to keep the erroneous beliefs in the mix.

[uponit7771]

170. A regulated WS is not a deal breaker to me, her speeches when they came out were about oppurtunity

... etc.

Unregulated anything is "free market" mentality which hurts humans historically ... not the regulated ones

[karynnj]

174. Obviously, her intention was to run and it was not a secret

While it was true that circumstances could have led her to unexpectedly not run, but it clearly was a pretty likely event.

In Obama's case - not, he is not running.

[mcar]

25. Why shouldn't he or any other person asked to give a speech be paid for it?

I do not get the hate about this from some corners. Similar to the HRC speech hate. Seems like lots of other people get paid for speeches with no problem.

[OKNancy]

29. It's weird isn't it?

He is no longer in government, so I see no problem at all.
Some people just need to get off their high horse.

[mcar]

32. Purity tests, but only for certain politicians

Hmm...

[brush]

39. Repugs get paid left and right but you don't hear a peep from the Dem critics about that.

[mcar]

40. Yep!

[ismnotwasm]

43. Do we ever bring up the speaking fees for white males?

Asking for a friend.

[uponit7771]

71. I'm HIP !!!

[melman]

76. Well maybe your friend needs to pay more attention

Because to act like W or Bill Clinton and others before them were never criticized for this...it's just ridiculous.

[ismnotwasm]

80. To this degree?

I don't recall that

[betsuni]

85. +1

[TCJ70]

95. It was tried with Sanders during the primary...

...he released his transcripts (there was one I think) then it was dropped because there wasn't anything to see.

[QC]

103. As I recall, though it has been a while, Reagan was pretty white.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/10/world/japan-bids-welcome-in-7-figures-to-reagan.html

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-03-04/magazine/tm-2327_1_nancy-reagan-foundation

[treestar]

44. Same with Hillary - if someone wants to pay that much

Then they are worth it.

It's not like they won't pay their taxes on it, will call it "theft" or would oppose tax increases that would cause them to have to pay more taxes.

[MedusaX]

61. BFD... 400k buys exactly 2 Mar-a-lago memberships

So what..
he provided a service & was compensated in an amount equal to 2 memberships at the current POTUS' place of business...

It was not tax dollars that were used to pay him..

Unlike the 3.6 MILLION tax dollars it costs EACH & EVERY time 45 wants to hang out with his customers at Mar-a-lago...

[Freethinker65]

64. The fees are not important

Last edited Fri Apr 28, 2017, 12:29 AM - Edit history (1)

What is said is important, and to a lesser extent, how the money is used is important to me. The Obamas have every right to earn money for their speeches, as did Hillary, the Bushes, Mitt Romney, etc.

When $$ given for speeches turns into $$ for favorable policy outcomes, I have concerns. I may be proved wrong, but I am not concerned about the integrity of the Obamas.

[Gothmog]

65. I have zero problem with President Obama being paid the going rate

[vi5]

67. I don't care what ex-presidents make for their speeches.

I honestly don't and I've never understood why people do. They served their country and people want to hear them speak, so good for them.

I absolutely do care about what people get paid to make speeches and to who and what they say when they are in office/service, planning on serving in office either again or for the first time. Unless they are fully transparent about what was said, where it was said, how much it was said for and any other details.

[Skittles]

72. sorry, was anyone under the illusion he wasn't going to cash in?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

147. Sadly, no. But $60 million in book sales would be enough to feather their nest for....

.... for generations to come.

I guess $160 million is more better.

[HopeAgain]

75. I'm appalled

I'm sorry, makes him look like just another politician. I think of those occupy kids giving their heart and soul and how little support they got.

I liked Obama, I voted for him, but I think he could have stood more for economic justice, and when a politician gets a big payout this soon? Looks bad to me.

[uponit7771]

106. For accepting money for work ?!?!?!? Your fvcking with us right?

[Cha]

112. Lots of pearls of being

clutched.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[HopeAgain]

132. I'm not googly eyed over any politician

Not even Obama. This is about positions, policy and leadership, not personality. Why would anyone work to reign in Wall Street if they know they can get $400,000 from them for one speech as soon as they leave office?

Looks bad to me.

Wait, what did Obama do to reign in Wall Street?

[BeyondGeography]

135. Dodd-Frank, and they hated him for it

Could he have done more? Yes. Does accepting $400k from WS for a speech shortly after leaving the WH add another dimension to the discussion? Yes.

[GulfCoast66]

180. Dodd Frank and consumer protection

Which the republicans are about to overturn.

But let's focus on attacking the most Liberal Ex-president of my life for earn a well deserved paycheck after 8 years of being demonized rather than focusing on the republicans destroying our democracy.

Bet it plays well in homogeneous Vermont.

[HopeAgain]

181. Dodd Frank has done nothing for the working class

Who can't afford a mortgage, let alone pay into a 401K. It's good to be white and upper middle class and have those liberals cover their back.

[GulfCoast66]

183. Nice attempt at deflection

Try harder next time. President Obama signed legislation that Wall Street hated. And I grant you, it had little to do with working class
Americans who can not afford a mortgage. But it was still an issue to be dealt with and the Democratic Party and President Obama did just that. Good Presidents can walk and chew gum at the same time. He signed legislations that helped all middle class Americans, not just white upper middle class Americans as you state. You do know that there are also black and brown middle class Americans who have pension, mortgages and 401K's who also benefited from President Obama's actions, do you not?

And for those working class Americans? I am pretty sure the ACA is helping many of them. The sad thing is that many of the white beneficiaries of he ACA voted for Trump.

Have a nice evening.

[Cha]

111. President Obama is entitled to earn a living.. Has anyone heard the speech

yet?

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[BannonsLiver]

157. You'll be alright. Just rub some dirt on it. Walk it off. etc.

[HopeAgain]

162. Naw, I'm getting pretty used to this

"third way Democrat" bullshit.

[BannonsLiver]

163. ...

[HopeAgain]

164. I'm with her

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/28/warren-troubled-by-report-of-wall-street-paid-obama-speech.html

[LAS14]

179. Quid pro quo for a speech??

People who command the fees that Hillary and Barack got are typically well off enough that they're not doing it for the money. Hard as it may be to imagine that $250,000 to $400,000 might not be an overwhelming motivation to do ill.

I have lived in an environment where honoraria were paid (although nowhere near the hundreds of thousands we're talking about here) and it is just so far from thinking that a quid pro quo would be attached. Has anyone ever encountered an actual instance of something being expected (besides the speech) in return for an honorarium?

Sounds nuts to me.

[JCanete]

77. I think the point is always, do we know why you are getting that kind of money from this

particular source? The thing about conflicts of interest is that there's no way of telling what kind of arrangements have been made when, what deals brokered. Just because Obama is out of office now does not entirely change the optics of this.

Do I think Obama is corrupt? No I truly don't. I don't know that there will ever be a a President quite as unimpeachable(literally), as Obama, or at least, I believe he has broken no laws. But when such an agreement develops it calls back-scratching into question.

I'm also happy for him, that he's getting paid the big bucks for a speaking fee, and I agree in part, he may as well put that banker money to good use, but I'm not entirely comfortable with it.

[uponit7771]

108. The optics are bad cause people take money for work !?!?!

[JCanete]

109. that was cute but you actually know why the optics are bad. Tell me why they aren't,

don't smooth it over to the point where there's no texture here.

[uponit7771]

110. Nope, thought the argument against speaking fees last year was sexist are the least and ...

... silly at best and the people proffering said position didn't have the minierals to call anyone a sellout and still do.

[JCanete]

114. well shit, it's the norm to take speaking money after holding office, and what ever could be wrong

with that?

Just to clarify with you, are you saying it is a problem but what a surprise, suddenly we care about it because of a woman and black man? Or are you saying, nothing to ever see here?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

81. But he's a sellout

[Cha]

113. They should wait until they at least hear

the speech to find out if it was worth it or not. lol

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[CreekDog]

102. I was hoping he'd get more

Every dollar he gets doesn't go to the Koch Brothers.

[betsuni]

116. One of the symptoms of Obama Derangement Syndrome is never ever ever ever never

giving Obama the benefit of the doubt even for a second. Always jump right in with accusations of nefarious dark conspiracies about all the terrible things he was plotting as president. Now that he's not president they'll have to adjust. "Optics" -- is that the new reason? Without any evidence of any hint of wrongdoing, it's all personal, Obama and Hillary are immoral, can't trust them, what are they really up to. Then slather on some "why didn't Obama/Clinton/Democrats stop (fill in everything bad ever to happen here).

[Cha]

123. Exactly betsuni.. He's getting paid for his experience & work.. Shocking!

He's fucking earned it. I just told someone that I trusted President Obama and have ever since he earned it.

Yes, "optics" without even knowing what the speech is.

Link to tweet

Who are they worried about "optics" over? Fascistrumps? lol those on the other end of the spectrum that never appreciated President Obama for ANYTHING?

[ucrdem]

128. U rock Cha!

[Cha]

129. Mahalo, ucr!

back@cha!

[ucrdem]

130. Agree with you 1000%. The double standard is ridic

Trump runs a QVC channel out of the Oval Office and Obama gets grief for a legal speaking fee?

[JCanete]

125. you don't have to go anywhere near that far to have a problem with this. Again, when we make it

normal to get paid big bucks by these institutions that our politicians were once--recently--in charge of regulating, we make it normal for EVERYONE. I get it, it already was. I get it, why now the outrage?

what I want is to be able to point to a motherfucking GOP congressperson on the take and say "that is a clear conflict of interest and you don't see anything of the sort from us." But we can't do that, because "why the fuck is it fair that only the GOP take money from big banks, when our politicians worked so much harder and are so much smarter and are good people, and are worth every penny they get?"

Well I've stated my reasons why...but whatever.

[BeyondGeography]

126. Great point; Democrats need to draw a much clearer line

You can't talk to kids as Obama did on Tuesday about the downside of money in politics and, a few hours later, be reported as accepting a $400K fee from Wall St. for a speech without adding to the kind of "both sides do it" cynicism that made Trump possible.

[CakeGrrl]

133. President Obama is not "in politics"

He's a private citizen.

Warren, Sanders and the rest of the usual ODS critics need to focus on the active treason taking place by people in ACTIVE government positions.

[BeyondGeography]

134. Whoosh.

[betsuni]

138. Being paid big bucks by institutions does not mean one is on the take.

The arts take money from institutions, so do Olympic athletes. If athletes don't come back with medals, the sponsoring corporations don't send guys with baseball bats to whack them in the knees and teach them a lesson for losing. They don't threaten ballet companies with fish wrapped in newspapers for having a bad season. Good politicians take money from all sorts of sources and then do their job. What are the institutions going to do? I don't live in a world where everyone is corrupt and horrible, especially not Barack Obama. Ridiculous.

[JCanete]

171. not what I said. at all actually. I said it makes it harder for us to call the GOP out. It muddies

the water. You think this is so transparent that people will see right through it if Republicans Judo a conversation about cronyism? It makes our job harder. It takes one of the most obvious places that the GOP are weak and makes it impossible for us to bludgeon them with it.

I don't know what else you're saying. Corporations fund the arts either because they are in the business of turning a profit from that art, cue funding movies like Sicko, or because they are interested in adding good PR to their portfolio. When banksters hire Obama to speak, it is very much because they can, but it is an exchange of 400,000 dollars, again, from the people who this man regulated only months ago.

The world you live in IS one that is corrupt and horrible. Yes, it beats living in Russia, China, North Korea(as if we've had nothing to do with the state of those nations)...but money is an amazingly persistent eroder of decency. If you think Obama is not corrupt--and by the way-I myself like to believe that--that's great, but none of that changes the fact that this makes it harder, not easier, to deal with 'legal' corruption, particularly as it pertains to the GOP.

[uponit7771]

146. +1

[ucrdem]

127. He'll probably wind up donating it if he doesn't cancel altogether.

Yeah it's a shame but it is what it is. He needs a piece of that Merchandise Mart cash cow the Kennedy family did so well by. Seriously, it's a beautiful piece of real estate in a part of Chi-town that's booming.

[all american girl]

136. I just wonder why a black man and a woman are suppose

to ask for permission on the democratic side? My favorite is that he should do it for free....hmmmm...where have I heard that before?

[FiveGoodMen]

152. What makes you think that we'd feel any different if it was a white man?

You're jumping to conclusions.

[all american girl]

176. I have never heard anyone be upset until it was a woman and a black man

[Skidmore]

150. Thanks, Trevor Noah.

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/04/27/daily-show-just-silenced-critics-obamas-400000-speech/

[Orsino]

151. There's more than one point to consider.

We ought to care about whether there has been or will be any tit-for-tat, or possibly the appearance thereof.
We ought to care about what the former president is going to say to Wall Street, and whether he's willing to let us over hear.
We ought to care about the example he sets in spending the money that we helped him earn.

Given that he's not going to be running for office again, the first concern may be small.
If we can watch the speech, or just read a transcript, that ought to take care of the second.
The third remains to be seen, but I'm optimistic.

[BannonsLiver]

158. Question on number 3

Does he need to like, buy a Ford Taurus instead of a Lambo? Would that meet with your approval?

[Orsino]

161. He is, or was, a domestic purchaser.

I'm guessing he would generally hew to the Ford.

A Lamborghini would be ridiculous. But rather than engaging in reductio ad absurdem, we should ask better, more holistic questions about the examples he sets, and whether any hint of corruption lingers around what so far is just a single speech he hasn't even given. Given that whatever he does is likely to be perfectly legal, it can still be a guide for any future legislation we feel might be needed.

[Madam45for2923]

165. Nicely put! Agree with you completely.

[karynnj]

173. You miss the point - Obama is not a future candidate for anything

Hillary Clinton had no LEGAL reason she could not charge whatever she wanted for a speech given to anyone.

The biggest problem was politically it was tone deaf. Everyone here knew that big banks and various Wall street firms (especially Goldman Sachs) were seen as at least partly at fault for the 2008 crash and they suffered little long term negative impact. Within a year big bonuses were back. Clinton giving private talks to them and withholding the transcripts was a negative. It opened a line of attack against her that did not have to be there. Additionally, it hurt her credibility when she sounded more positive on TPP on the tapes than in the debates. While this reflected that she did indeed shift her position from 2014 to 2016, those 2014 speeches were not out of line with her 2013/2014 PUBLIC positions.

The second problem was that there was the possibility of buying influence or access with the likely next President of the US. That is not a possibility with President Obama, VP Biden, SoS Kerry, GWB, Colin Powell etc. Nor, was it a problem if HRC charged a lot for post November 2016 speeches. This was not illegal or unethical, but it is politically something that people will question.

[guillaumeb]

177. Some might say quid pro quo.

Referencing the failure to prosecute the bankers who nearly ruined the economy.

Some will disagree.

[kentuck]

178. What was the speech about ??

Or does it not matter?

[we can do it]

182. I'm tired of the BS.