Focusing on Obama’s fee for this one speech misses the point. The point is that Americans’ trust in the federal government is very low and there’s a good reason why it’s so low. The average voter out there simply perceives that there are vast amounts of money sloshing around in Washington, both in official lobbying and in payments arranged for politicians and their families before and after they take office. Obama’s speech is one example. Bill and Hillary’s Wall Street speeches are another example. Chelsea Clinton getting paid $600,000 for a few minutes of brain-dead appearances on MSNBC is another example. Jeb Bush getting a major league baseball team is another example. Elizabeth Warren is no stranger to corporate money either. So the typical voter sees all this and connects the dots in the obvious way: corporations with obvious desires to influence politics arrange payments to politicians who are always willing to accept the money.
…fuck yeah.
And?
What the heck does that mean? That he is an extraordinary private citizen? I’m happy to go with that.
Why the fuck is an opinion written in 2009 relevant to Obama getting paid to make a speech in 2017? I think Obama should have taken a harder line on Wall Street as well. He didn’t. So I should take my money out of the banks in protest? I should stop giving my money to these evil bankers? I’m not clear on your point.
With all due respect: so the fuck what? I know you are trying to make a point but I don’t have a clue what that point is. Are you implying impropriety? That these “Wall Street Bankers” who were not personally prosecuted by Obama who are now the “major officials” are “rewarding” Obama for not prosecuting them?
If that is what you are implying then just say that then. Because that sounds ridiculous to me. This was a Healthcare Conference. The Obama administration oversaw one of the biggest changes to happen to the American healthcare industry in decades. Obama spoke about healthcare . I’m not seeing the problem.
Why does this even matter to you? What does he owe you? He’s not running for office. He doesn’t represent a political party any more. An extraordinary private citizen got paid market rate for making a speech. I’m still failing to see why this is news.
*2 — Cantor Fitzgerald survived both losing the largest single number of employees (658) of any company with offices in the World Trade Center on 9/11 and they also survived the financial crisis because they were NOT engaging in the same reckless behavior as the other financial firms (like Lehman, AIG, et al).
Moreover, Cantor Fitzgerald has done a great deal of philanthropic work in honor of their lost employees. Along with keeping a promise to use 25% of ALL profits they earned for the next 5 years to provide money to each of the original 658 families, they also promised to cover the health insurance costs for those families for 10 years. On top of this, they have continued the legacy of those lost employees, by making charitable donations to help the victims of Hurricane Sandy and of a huge tornado, as well as other acts of kindness.
…
Basically, Obama is being paid to give a speech to the ONE company on Wall Street that no one should be criticizing. Oh, and by the way — he’s giving this speech at their annual healthcare conference… a subject that Obama cares deeply about — and will forever be associated with since his signature healthcare legislation has been dubbed “Obamacare”. It’s also an issue that Cantor Fitzgerald championed even while still reeling from the losses they suffered on 9/11, by promising to cover the health care of the families of their lost employees for 10 years!!
So what the hell is there to complain about?*
That will come back to bite Kos if Obama proves to be indiscriminate in taking money like the Clintons are.
Thank you, DrDeth, for putting this into perspective.
In light of what that article points out, I can respect Obama’s decision to accept the speaking engagement. Still seems like a high fee to an average schlub like me, but then we don’t know what he’ll do with it, and maybe we don’t need to. My main concern is how he will use his forum and the influence it will have on the sociopolitical scene. The Daily Kos article gives me cause to hope in that regard.
Why would it bite them in the ass? If it comes to that, they’re free to re-assess their opinion of him.
The what!? Why would anyone’s expectations regarding Obama have anything to do with whether or why they might criticize a Trump voter?
This has nothing to do with government – it has to do with an ingrained culture of capitalist supremacy, one that worships the primacy of capitalism above all things. These speaking fees are peanuts compared to what some of the brainless nitwits who appear on reality TV shows are paid, or who star in just about any TV show or film, or who play in any major league sport, or who are CEOs or senior executives at any company of just about any significant size. How can you criticize a former US president getting a one-time fee for giving a speech on the topic of his signature legislative accomplishment when Alex Rodriguez gets $29 million each and every year for catching a ball and then throwing it back, and God only knows what the idiot Kardashians are paid.
There’s a real irony in criticizing any of this as a failure of government when government is in fact the one and only tool available in a democracy for achieving some modicum of wealth equalization in the midst of this madness. If it’s not doing it, don’t blame the system of government, blame the voters. They could have elected Bernie Sanders, but they elected Trump.
Because to criticize one group of voters as delusional you should preferably not still think Obama is different from other politicians. That myth was shattered before he even took office.
The point is, Bernie Sanders pays a portion of those who slave for him less than what he believes the minimum wage should be. That, my friend, is being a hypocrite.
Snopes, being the left-wing shill that it is, has concocted a distinction between “staff intern” and “intern” in order to label the claim as a mixture of true and false, rather than the outright cold, hard truth that it is.
This is absolutely shameless of Snopes, but given that we know the site’s owner is degenerate pond scum, it’s not unexpected.
[ol]
[li]I don’t remember us being friends, but I do have a rather fuzzy memory, so let’s move on.[/li][li]It was YOU who claimed, incorrectly, that Burnie Sanders pays his “staffers” “well-below” $15. Snopes clarifies that he pays his “interns” $12 (somewhat less than $15, true, but also well ABOVE current minimum wage, if that’s worth anything to you.)[/li][li]I think the takeaway is that Burnie Sanders PAYS his interns.[/li][li]If you think Snopes is a “left-wing shill” how do you explain their debunking of some anti-Trump rumors and verification of some pro-Trump rumors? Or their verification of some rumors unflattering of Democtats?[/li][*]I was not actually aware that the owner of Snopes is “degenerate pond scum”, and would be very curious to know the criteria by which one can make such a classification. [/ol]
[My bolding.]
Well, I DID think Obama was very different from Bush. Still do.
Now if you’re suggesting Obama isn’t MUCH different from MOST politicians, well, I think a case could be made for that, depending on your criteria of measurement. Though I think it’s more of a stretch to claim that anyone who still considers Obama to be better than most politicians must be delusional.
Now I also think Trump is VERY different from most politicians, in VERY different ways to those in which Obama differs from Bush.
And those differences, and the obviousness of those differences, make it perfectly legitimate to hold a different judgement on both Trump and his supporter than on Obama.
But the problem is really how you framed this:
You’re the one calling Obama’s supporters “delusional” (and “morons” to boot!) and claiming they shouldn’t “criticize Trump voters.”
I don’t think all Trump supporters are “delusional”, though I might criticize them as being either far too gullible or narrow-minded.
I still have a generally favorable view of Obama. I hope I am not delusional. (But then, how would I know?)
I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think anyone here really understands the gravity of this. Barack Obama, unlike an athlete, unlike an entertainer, and unlike a lot of others in public service, has enjoyed a special place in the hearts and minds of many people who voted for him, and I think they hoped that he would be above this sort of thing.
Maybe it’s like when Tiger Woods was caught having affairs on his wife – yes, other athletes do it. But we wanted to believe that Tiger was better than that. A lot of people said ‘So what - he’s just like others’. They’re missing the point. When you have an opportunity to be Jackie Robinson and not, say, Magic Johnson, and you blow it, then it’s a let-down. Similarly, when Barack Obama had an opportunity to be held as a more authentic champion of progressive politics but decided to spend his political capital by using the very Wall Street bankers he criticized to enrich himself, there’s a sense of lost opportunity. Barack Obama was still basically a good president in a lot of ways, but at the present time, when we’re looking for more authentic leadership, Barack Obama may have wasted an opportunity that he had worked 8 years to build.
Do you know, literally, ANYTHING about this situation? Cantor-Fitzgerald was about the only Wall Street institution that DIDN’T screw around with things better left unscrewed, like derivatives and crap like that. And the speech is ON HEALTHCARE, which is kind of Obama’s spotlight issue due to the ACA. People who are getting the vapors over this don’t know what the hell is going on.
And, incidentally, I am an Obama supporter. I would have voted for him AGAIN if it were legal. And I. Don’t. Give. A. Flying. Fuck. About this.
Maybe some people should stop investing themselves in the hope for Heroes or for Enlightened Beings/Ascended Masters walking among us. We may desire leaders who will not just do their job to the best of their abilities but also be exemplars of superior virtue but only the former can be a real expectation. Obama’s opportunity to be “a more authentic champion of progressive politics”, if your definition is slapping down Wall Street, was 8 years ago and he made the call that letting the troubled big businesses fail and sending bankers to jail was not the best use of his political capital. Are we really to be disappointed now?
…for fucks sake. I would like to think I do understand the gravity of this. And this is not like Tiger Woods getting caught having an affair at all. Cheating on your wife is bad. Obama is not “cheating on us.”
He got paid to deliver a speech to a healthcare conference. That isn’t fucking evil. I want the former President of the United States to be engaging with Wall Street. It doesn’t make sense for him not to. In 2010 President Obama spoke to House Republicans at their annual policy retreat. There is nothing wrong with speaking directly to “the enemy.”
Don’t speak for me. I don’t expect Obama to be an “authentic champion of progressive politics” and I’m not sure why anyone should. I don’t think he has ever asked to be thought of that way. If you are going to hold people to such ridiculous standards then you are alway going to be let down. Obama is out of politics. He is a private citizen. Let him do his thing.
I don’t live in America. I am not an American citizen. But if it were legal, I would have voted for him too. 
-
Except for jayjay and banquet bear, the Health Care Conference angle seems to have escaped most posters who are fixated on - WALL ST. WALL ST. WALL ST.
-
$400,000.00 is corporate chump change. Melissa Meyer is getting dumped from CEO @yahoo and she’s getting ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY something something MILLION! Se doesn’t even have to speak or eat rubber chicken.
-
This will put a crimp in his third term - just the break the Romney campaign has been waiting for.:rolleyes:
All well and good, and I don’t dispute what you’re saying other than the fact that it’s immaterial. Again, we’re talking about perceptions. A lot of people on SDMB fail to make the distinction between their facts and other people’s perceptions of truth - which explains why a lot of people here got the shit shocked out of them on November 8th. I, on the other hand, wasn’t quite as shocked.
I didn’t mean to suggest that it was, but people who might have been inclined to support him are probably going to be disappointed and see his conduct as an example of the larger problem. Certainly, there are numerous supporters who won’t see it that way and who will say ‘Who really gives a toss?’.
He can engage with Wall Street. All I’m saying is that, from a PR point of view, he might want to choose his engagement carefully. Getting $400,000 for a single speech makes it look like he’s sleeping with the enemy. Again, I know that it’s a time-honored tradition for ex-presidents to rake in millions in speaking fees. But shouldn’t the election of a right wing populist be an indication that maybe, just maybe, engaging in time-honored traditions of K-Street and Wall Street are, shall we say, a good way to lose influence on Main Street? This country is losing its political center, which Obama basically represents, albeit with a decided tilt to the left. This country is increasingly at risk of lurching to the hard right and swinging violently back to the left. I would have thought that someone who presided during an 8-year period of partisanship not seen in decades - perhaps more than a century - would understand that.
Okay, SDMB posters, for the last time: I’m not speaking for you. I know you’re fighting ignorance. But guess what: there’s a boatload of ignorance out there, and whether you like it or not, they can probably cancel out your votes.
I think posters like DrDeath, **jayjay **and **Banquet Bear **are not “failing to make the distinction between their facts and other people’s perceptions of truth,” but are fairly pointing out the need to distinguish people’s ***misconceptions ***from the facts.
And for this I thank them.
You’re saying that it doesn’t matter what the truth is, it only matter what *impression *is made. That’s a cynical world view, with a sadly great amount of supporting evidence in the current political condition, I will concede. But that’s a condition that badly needs to be remedied, not resigned to. And the motto for this site is “***Fighting ***ignorance . . . ,” not “accepting ignorance.”
No, I’m not saying that it only matters what impression is made, but it really, really does matter. Moreover, is it necessarily wrong for people to have a bad taste in their mouth over someone receiving a $400,000 cash out from a speech, particularly when one considers the fact that they’re mainly profiting from their time in public office? Look, I get that it’s legal. I don’t think it’s even professionally unethical per se – but that’s not the point. What critics are getting at is that, at a time when the intersection of money and politics is making ordinary Americans sick to the point where they even question the necessity of their own participation in democracy, is it unreasonable to question Obama’s judgment in this case? I don’t see that as accepting ignorance. It’s fair to ask: Why should we normalize this practice?