Satire or not. I can't decide: Hillary, be proud of your Wall Street speeches

[cali]

<snip>

Anyway, it's ridiculous that the speeches-on-Wall-Street thing is becoming an issue for you in the primary so let me take the liberty of offering you some free campaign advice.

Folks just don't seem to understand that money-for-speeches -- while perhaps crass at times -- is just good clean fun with no connection at all to the important issues of money in politics and the power of Wall Street. In fact, I think the whole thing would go from being a negative to a positive for your campaign if you made a few simple points:

It's just show business. Every brand-name entertainer over 45 -- singers, athletes, writers and politicians -- cashes in one way or another because they have time on their hands yet still appeal to the well-heeled baby boomers who attend conferences, throw expensive parties and shell out for Vegas shows. The Wall Street firms who signed you up weren't thinking about how they could increase their power and influence -- they have K Street and "senior adviser" sinecures for that -- they just thought you'd provide some good old-fashioned entertainment. (To tell you the truth, I would have preferred Keith Richards to your husband at that meeting in 2002, but I was not involved in the event planning, and he probably would have been too expensive anyway.)

Since you got paid for a service, there is no hint of corruption. Although the Supreme Court got it exactly backward in its Citizens United decision, the danger from corruption is greatest when there is no explicit quid pro quo. If you'd been paid for doing nothing, people could rightly suspect you'd feel some loyalty or future obligation to your paymasters. But you were paid to provide specific services as laid out in some very explicit contracts and you did it. Case closed.

Your earnings reflect admirable commercial instincts. Americans appreciate a candidate with business acumen. Your speech-related earnings reflect your appreciation for the market and your belief in capitalism. Not to have taken millions in low-hanging speaking fees from easy marks would have been positively un-American. Even socialists should appreciate the extra joy -- remember "Ocean's Eleven" -- that you got taking money from people whom you may not particularly like. Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, you weren't fraternizing with the enemy -- you were picking his pocket!

snip

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/08/opinions/hillary-clinton-be-proud-of-wall-street-speeches-macintosh/

[Fumesucker]

1. Not satire, I'm reading plenty of comments that say that in all seriousness

People smarter than I am and far more formal education are convinced that's so.

[cali]

2. Yeah, I lean toward not satire, but it's so tone deaf over the top

[Glamrock]

3. Wow!

If they reach much further, they're in danger of falling off the ladder!

[cali]

4. Onionesque

[KittyWampus]

5. And Sanders can be "proud" of the speeches where he insulted the ENTIRE Democratic party

His words will sink other Democrats running no matter what their voting record or what their constituency is.

His sanctimonious pontificating is toxic.

[cali]

8. Lol. Not a conflict of interest

Hillary was motivated by greed. Period.

[frylock]

9. wehhhh

[Iggy Knorr]

6. Nothing to see here

"But you were paid to provide specific services as laid out in some very explicit contracts and you did it. Case closed. "

Case is closed! Daddy is talking now, shush.

The line between endorsements and satire is gone!

[Arazi]

7. Yeah, I also don't think this is satire

they're not even trying to hide the greed

Not to have taken millions in low-hanging speaking fees from easy marks would have been positively un-American.