Excuse me, but that’s exactly what Obama is and is going to be. Like his predecessors. You think Clinton sat on all those corporate boards because of his business acumen? A former US President as a board member gives you connections, gets people to give your pitch a sympathetic hearing. That’s what a lobbyists does. Not just Presidents, former cabinet officials, Government members and this is not restricted to the US.
Perception is reality.
While in office, Obama’s supporters on the Left perceived the president as someone who was progressive and as someone who tried to fight against the system. The accepted that there is a pragmatic side to governing and that he sometimes had to settle for compromises that were less than ideal.
Unfortunately, regardless of how he intends to use the 400K per pop, he is now going to be perceived by both the Right and the Left as someone who’s not really an authentic champion of change. After all, he’s now profiting handsomely from a corrupt financial system - a system that nearly caused this country’s economic collapse and one that is responsible for increasing (and extreme) socioeconomic inequality.
Obama’s greatest asset is that he was in some ways one of the few remaining credible voices of the moderate center - in his case the moderate left. With his actions, he discredits himself to those who stand to his Left. I don’t know where Obama’s been the last 2 years but did he not see the impact that speaking fees had on Hillary Clinton’s campaign? Someone needs to confront him and make him accept that Trump’s victory was not just a repudiation of Hillary Clinton – it was also a repudiation of Barack Obama as well. I don’t think he understands or accepts that.
Meh.
Regards,
Shodan
Good thing he’s not running any more.
Or maybe he understands, and his response is* “oh, really? well screw you guys, I might as well cash in.”*
When Michelle runs for President, we can revisit the issue.
Regards,
Shodan
Without discussing the merits of this claim; I will point out that unlike his last three predecessors, Obama does not have a close relative(s) with present political ambitions (I will presume that talk of Michelle running is just that, talk) so he is less likely to be encumbered by such issues.
His political career is over. The only feasible job for him would be as the head of some large multinational entity and thats very unlikely for a former US president.
Well, he could pull a Taft. Obama for Chief Justice!
I think Slate had the best response to this: “If the only thing keeping progressivism afloat is the virtue-signaling of our best leaders, we’re in trouble.”
I’m one of the folk whose main criticism of Obama was that he was not liberal enough. I recall an article in the Atlantic some time during his presidency which outlined the similar sources of political contributions across the parties. Both Obama and his Republican opponents were (largely) backed by the same moneyed interests. He, Hillary, and (most) other Dem politicians have been backed by Wall Street while running for and in office. I don’t see a big issue with them continuing to suck off that teat when out of office.
Of course, if campaign financing rules were drastically different, I might feel otherwise.
The best part of the article which the author hid deep in the middle.
You surprised that a guy who receives money for speaking approves of the practice?
I’m not a big Obama supporter and do not see any major problems with this.
I say the guy spent eight years working for $400,000 per year. He’s entitled to get a raise.
And he’s not coming in with a gun and a holdup note. They agree to pay him; he agrees to speak. Nothing wrong with it at all.
I didn’t give a shit about this when it was Hillary being denounced for it and I don’t give a shit about it now that it’s Obama.
He’s doing what’s to be done. Do the detractors think he should have negotiated the $400k payday down to just $75k or such?
I agree with the first clause, but why do you think it applies in spades to politicians? For a very talented lawyer do you really think politics is the best path to big payoffs? To believe it I’d have to believe that most politicians are motivated primarily by opportunities for larceny and graft and I’m not quite that cynical.
In a nutshell, yes. He hasn’t got anything to say worth $400k, especially about health care.
That might be just about the nicest response a conservative could give. 
'cept maybe this.
I would still prefer to see Obama choose a different path.
But like I said, for me it really hinges on how he uses the forum he’s given.
Yes it will be interesting to see what he says there.
The problem with Clinton wasn’t the speaking, or her speaking fees, nor who she was speaking to. The problem was that she was running for president and hiding the content of those speeches from interested voters. In my opinion, that’s at least as bad as refusing to release your tax returns.
As soon as Obama runs for office again, the topic of his speeches to Wall Street is back on the table, in my opinion. Until then, he’s just a private individual trying to make an honest dollar. Just like nobody gave a shit about Trump’s tax returns until he ran for public office.
Lots of people speak for large sums at questionable venues. Who cares? Not very many people run for the highest elected office in the world, however, and I imagine it’s in their best interest to release information that voters demand, if they really intend to win the election. The fact that Hillary thought pissing off voters who asked for the content of those speeches was a better idea than simply releasing the info implies that those transcripts would have been pretty damning. That was the issue. Not “OMG, she spoke to bankers!”
Sounds like you shouldn’t invite him to speak at your company. Those who do have their own reasons for doing so. Assuming they are just stupid doesn’t make sense.
I wonder if there’s any significance at him choosing Cantor Fitzgerald for his first high powered speaking engagement.
Cantor Fitzgerald had their offices at the top of the WTC North Tower, and 658 of their 960 person work force were killed on 9/11. This gives them a sympathy factor that other investment banks lack.