Ruth Marcus: Hillary's unseemly speechifying.

[MBS]

to put this post in context:
1. Ruth Marcus emphasizes (see below) that she is a fan of Hillary Clinton
2. I will absolutely support the Democratic nominee, which presumably will be Hillary, in the general election.
3. But Hillary and her campaign should heed Marcus' words, here. Presumably, once she announces formally, she can no longer take speaking fees. But.. .well, here's what Marcus has to say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clintons-unseemly-speechifying/2015/05/22/88105530-0096-11e5-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html

Again with the speeches. The gross excessiveness of it all, vacuuming up six-figure checks well past the point of rational need or political seemliness. The ceaseless drip of information that ought to have already been released, now being presented with a self-serving back pat over transparency.I wasn’t planning to write, again, about Hillary Clinton’s compulsive speechifying. I already weighed in nearly a year ago* urging her to stop talking. For money, that is.

That unheeded advice came, by my accounting, some $6 million ago. Not including Bill Clinton’s speeches. Not including any speeches that Hillary Clinton made on behalf of the family foundation, which just disclosed that, um, it neglected to disclose somewhere between $12 million and $26 million of money it made by booking the Clintons. Because, the foundation explained, this money counted as “revenue,” not “donations,” and therefore was not reported. Their reporting pledge covered only donations. (Credit here for continuing the reporting after she left the State Department.)

Let me repeat: I am a fan of Hillary Clinton. But here I find myself, once again, with hair on fire, so let me explain why I find this conduct so disturbing. It is, granted, a little late to bemoan the spectacle of former presidents, or former anything elses, taking to the lecture circuit to cash in. . . What once screamed sleaze now is considered post-presidential business as usual. . . So what’s the problem when Hillary Clinton gets in on the act? It is the difference between being firmly on the exit side of the revolving door and being poised to circle back in. The former presidents are formers. They’re cashing in on the past. But Hillary Clinton has, she hopes, a political future. And that counsels prudence. Just because companies are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn’t mean you need to take the money. . . .The wiser course — certainly the wiser course on the verge of launching a presidential campaign — is to just say no, however big the bucks. After all, notwithstanding Bill Clinton’s “gotta pay our bills” defense, it’s not as if the couple were scrounging for change in the Chappaqua couch cushions. . .

Now comes the news about the previously undisclosed speaking fees that went to the foundation, not the Clintons themselves. The foundation says it is disclosing these out of an abundance of transparency. True, no law or ethics rule requires such reporting. As to Clinton’s agreement to disclose foundation donors, the position of the foundation and the Clinton campaign is that the document doesn’t include these because they’re “revenue” for services rendered, not charitable gifts. . . . Was this a bookkeeping glitch? . . .Or was it a calculated end-run around the disclosure agreement? . . I suspect the former but understand those who tend to the more nefarious interpretation. One explanation involves bungling; the other, shadiness. Neither is an especially attractive proposition for a presidential candidate.

*{6/27/14 http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-hillary-clintons-money-woes/2014/06/27/54587598-fe2f-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html}

[clydefrand]

1. I think this is why

Bernie is starting to better and better every day.

[orpupilofnature57]

3. People are starting to ask the right questions, what makes him/her Tic ?

[Scuba]

2. Yet some think the idea of a quid pro quo is unimaginable.

[merrily]

5. Well, there's reality quid pro quo and then there's

quid pro quo as Congress conveniently defines quid pro quo for its own benefit, which has zero to do with reality, as members of Congress know all too well.

[merrily]

4. IOKIYAAC.

[mimi85]

6. Ok, I give up. What's it mean?

[awoke_in_2003]

7. I am assumming

It's ok if you are a Clinton

On edit- got rid of the contraction. The full word "are" was needed to be correct

[merrily]

9. Thanks. That was one A too many. I'll do better next time.

[Paka]

8. They certainly do play by a different set of rules.

Just more of the same. Bernie is our real chance for change.

[NorthCarolina]

10. It's always about the $$$. eom

[davidpdx]

11. ....