General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I agree with Peter Daou re Sen Warren [View all]Rilgin
(787 posts)One of the major themes in the campaign against Trump was his corruption as a businessman and his relations to Russian money is going on now.
Turning to Speeches, not sure how old you are but this criticism is not restricted to black men or women. Lets start with Ronald Reagan himself who left office and did a speech for 2,000,000 dollars in Japan. There was a huge uproar about this. Reagan was totally criticized across both democratic and republican circles for this speech as selling his office. Here is just one article (and I mean just one of lots) and I will give you its closing quote.
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-03-04/magazine/tm-2327_1_nancy-reagan-foundation
"For the Great Communicator, whose standing plunged when he accepted the speaking honorarium from Japan's Fujisankei communications conglomerate last October, the main impression to be overcome is that he has been inappropriately cashing in on his eight-year presidency."
This was directly on speechifying right after leaving office and should put your "seems like" to rest. But there really is more although its not always on speeches, its more about getting rich from public policy.
Gore was praised for his work on climate change but left himself open to attacks because it also made him rich. It was minor but it existed.
Bush sons were criticized for trying to get rich from their father's connections.
Presidents that do not get criticized are those that do good after leaving office rather than seek riches like Jimmy Carter in his work for Habitat, even George Bush who is praised for fading away and painting.
Even then it matters more whether you return to the public sector as to the depth and duration of attacks. Bill was seen as getting rich and hobnobbing with the rich and powerful. He was criticized but was not highly criticized because he was never going to run again. Hillary would have received some criticism for her speeches to Goldman but not as much if she was not also running for election as president in the next election. The country has great income inequality and getting rich from speeches to wall street does not really show your understanding of what most of us go through which is one of the key characteristics we like in our candidates.
Since Barack is unlikely to run for office again, I do not think there will be much to any criticism and it will disappear pretty fast as an issue for him going forward just as it has for white men who have left office and made money.
Leaving speeches, there is Newt criticized for his book deals. Tom Delay for selling influence and a host of other white males who have been attacked by democrats on this board for cashing in on their office which is the real issue.
With respect to the revolving door between congress and lobbying groups, this has been a prominent issue for years and actually affects more men then women mostly because of male dominance of political leaderships (an issue by itself but not related to criticism of selling your office).
However, a real problem is that your "seems like" ignores the fact that it is unrelated to the gender or race but only the appearance that one is selling one's office.