General Discussion

karynnj

(60,980 posts)

173. You miss the point - Obama is not a future candidate for anything

Fri Apr 28, 2017, 03:13 PM

Apr 2017

Hillary Clinton had no LEGAL reason she could not charge whatever she wanted for a speech given to anyone.

The biggest problem was politically it was tone deaf. Everyone here knew that big banks and various Wall street firms (especially Goldman Sachs) were seen as at least partly at fault for the 2008 crash and they suffered little long term negative impact. Within a year big bonuses were back. Clinton giving private talks to them and withholding the transcripts was a negative. It opened a line of attack against her that did not have to be there. Additionally, it hurt her credibility when she sounded more positive on TPP on the tapes than in the debates. While this reflected that she did indeed shift her position from 2014 to 2016, those 2014 speeches were not out of line with her 2013/2014 PUBLIC positions.

The second problem was that there was the possibility of buying influence or access with the likely next President of the US. That is not a possibility with President Obama, VP Biden, SoS Kerry, GWB, Colin Powell etc. Nor, was it a problem if HRC charged a lot for post November 2016 speeches. This was not illegal or unethical, but it is politically something that people will question.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

184 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I'm so GLAD Obama took the going rate for his speech really early on. [View all] LAS14 Apr 2017 OP

thom Hartmann says this is a bad idea Ohioblue22 Apr 2017 #1

he's an idiot OKNancy Apr 2017 #2

+1000 And a willing participant in Russian Propaganda TV. OnDoutside Apr 2017 #16

You can say it, I cant. Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #51

Elizabeth Warren appears to agree with Thom Hartmann BeyondGeography Apr 2017 #20

on this subject yes, but she wasn't obnoxious about it OKNancy Apr 2017 #22

So can Obama for deciding to give this speech for $400k BeyondGeography Apr 2017 #23

If someone said that, then they are idiots too OKNancy Apr 2017 #27

It's who's paying BeyondGeography Apr 2017 #30

Just in: A new statement from Obama spokesman Eric Schultz, Cha Apr 2017 #107

He just made $400K for an A&E interview with Doris Kearns Goodwin and nobody will ever care BeyondGeography Apr 2017 #117

Sorry, President Obama does Not "look bad". Cha Apr 2017 #118

It isn't worth the grief he's getting, that's clear to me at least BeyondGeography Apr 2017 #120

People need to hear his speech first.. I trust President Cha Apr 2017 #122

She's not an idiot, for sure, but I don't agree with her here. LAS14 Apr 2017 #28

yep a recording of her comments has come through my facebook newsfeed about 3 times m-lekktor Apr 2017 #49

True. Squinch Apr 2017 #58

Actually, Thom Hartman is a very intelligent person... Trial_By_Fire Apr 2017 #78

He's a hypocrite.. he takes money from RT Cha Apr 2017 #115

They may not have the unity of the progressive and Democratic ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #131

And you have an inside track on others' agendas? George II Apr 2017 #154

Is the rest of the gang at RT "pro America" too? FSogol Apr 2017 #156

Thanks for the laugh! Trial_By_Fire Apr 2017 #160

Because he is being willingly used.. Adrahil Apr 2017 #184

+1 BannonsLiver Apr 2017 #144

Thom Hartmann is literally a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda, pnwmom Apr 2017 #4

I disagree with your statement about Thom and RT, phylny Apr 2017 #6

I listened to Hartman today on this. He is against Obama doing the speech for 400k. An ex-pres... brush Apr 2017 #9

+1 happy feet Apr 2017 #31

+1. n/t FSogol Apr 2017 #159

Hartmann is a $paid$ mouthpiece of the Russian government's "news" outlet. Full stop. nt Tarheel_Dem Apr 2017 #11

I listen to him almost daily. phylny Apr 2017 #15

Considering what RT and Putin did to the Democratic Party nominee, and other Democratic OnDoutside Apr 2017 #17

So right now there are no examples of him being a mouthpiece for Russia. n/t phylny Apr 2017 #36

The point is that by taking the rasPutin rouble he has placed monetary consideration above integrity OnDoutside Apr 2017 #37

Capitalism, yes, and perhaps not the best judgment. phylny Apr 2017 #166

There was a long thread on this just last week. Chiyo-chichi Apr 2017 #148

Thanks, I recall posting in it. phylny Apr 2017 #167

Spot on. brush Apr 2017 #168

You would think after the Intel reports came out that Russia interfered in our democratic process... Tarheel_Dem Apr 2017 #19

So he didn't leave. Is this proof that he's somehow phylny Apr 2017 #35

If he doesn't want to be a paid mouthpiece for Russia, then stop taking their money. pnwmom Apr 2017 #59

It shouldn't be that difficult mcar Apr 2017 #82

I'm honestly confused. phylny Apr 2017 #89

You are the company you keep. Ever hear that? Hartmann's presence legitimizes RT to the extent.... Tarheel_Dem Apr 2017 #66

It appears you keep changing the criteria. phylny Apr 2017 #88

My criteria never "changed". He's a traitorous, money grubbing mouthpiece for a country that.... Tarheel_Dem Apr 2017 #91

Okay. I listen to the man's words. You define "mouthpiece" phylny Apr 2017 #92

That is what he would do if he didnt have an agenda that was akin to Putin's, right? Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #54

I think so. And I'm waiting for someone to figure out Jill Stein's relationship with Russia too. Tarheel_Dem Apr 2017 #84

Read post #9. Today was a good example of his not so subtle undermining. brush Apr 2017 #38

So far, one thing. phylny Apr 2017 #41

Just being on RT is acceptable to you? Not me. The money must be good because Hartman can surely... brush Apr 2017 #52

Who did he meet with weekly and then BASH the democratic party for an hour Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #56

Exactly. brush Apr 2017 #69

He's taking money from Russia for his views. Russia doesn't pay people to be on RT pnwmom Apr 2017 #60

You have heard him spouting many Russian talking points -- you just don't recognize them. pnwmom Apr 2017 #57

no you are going way too far. If something is said that you don't like being said, and it criticizes JCanete Apr 2017 #74

It is a Russian talking point when Russia pays people, on its government controlled station, pnwmom Apr 2017 #79

oh my fucking God. Of course. I hope no Russian propagandists have ever said the sky is blue. JCanete Apr 2017 #93

Did you read Clint Watts testimony about Active Measures to the Senate Intelligence Committee? pnwmom Apr 2017 #94

+1 happy feet Apr 2017 #33

Then you're disagreeing with a fact. Thom is either a witting or an unwitting participant pnwmom Apr 2017 #46

And what are people who take $400,000 dollars from Wall Street for an hour's work? Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2017 #119

What is surreal is a Democrat comparing former President Obama's being paid by a Wall Street firm pnwmom Apr 2017 #121

Yeah, I forgot Putin trashed our economy, defrauded millions of investors,... Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2017 #142

Putin just helped put DT and his collection of moles throughout the US govt. pnwmom Apr 2017 #143

What is RT? LAS14 Apr 2017 #62

Russian Television network, which is state-sponsored. n/t pnwmom Apr 2017 #63

What? Dyedinthewoolliberal Apr 2017 #12

Clint Watts testified to the Senate about the Russian active measures campaign. pnwmom Apr 2017 #47

ummmm Dyedinthewoolliberal Apr 2017 #137

He didn't mention TH in particular. it is my conclusion based on the fact that he is paid by pnwmom Apr 2017 #139

Who is paid? Dyedinthewoolliberal Apr 2017 #172

He earns money based on the fact that his show is on the RT platform. That is his choice, pnwmom Apr 2017 #175

Better you say it than me... Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #53

do better than that. nt JCanete Apr 2017 #73

No, Thom Hartmann is NOT a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda... Trial_By_Fire Apr 2017 #86

His point about Obama not being justified in taking the speech money is a PERFECT EXAMPLE pnwmom Apr 2017 #87

Hartmann's viewpoint on this is... Trial_By_Fire Apr 2017 #90

It has everything to do with Russian propaganda. He is a paid mouthpiece for the Russian network. pnwmom Apr 2017 #140

Thom Hartmann works for a Global Oligarchy's Media . stonecutter357 Apr 2017 #5

Yes, since Russia is a global oligarchy and he works for their media. pnwmom Apr 2017 #141

LOL NurseJackie Apr 2017 #10

It certainly is convenient to let radio personalities decide for us. LanternWaste Apr 2017 #14

Who? mcar Apr 2017 #26

The dude who sold out to Russia Today? Who gives a flying fuck what he thinks anymore. nt JTFrog Apr 2017 #50

A man being paid by Putin??? GulfCoast66 Apr 2017 #55

That's nice. Kahuna7 Apr 2017 #68

One of my favorite sleeping pills Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 2017 #83

idk but I'm surprised at the amount of negative responses..... eom Ohioblue22 Apr 2017 #96

so is taking money from RT.com CreekDog Apr 2017 #101

I think working for RT is a bad idea. lapucelle Apr 2017 #153

I say good for O. Take the banksters for every dime they're willing to pay. Vinca Apr 2017 #3

I begrudge him NOTHING for all the travail he and his family have endured elfin Apr 2017 #7

I wonder what trumps going rate is for speeches....oh, that's right - asiliveandbreathe Apr 2017 #8

Soon Donald will only be able to command a fee treestar Apr 2017 #45

OMG - where do I send the check???? asiliveandbreathe Apr 2017 #48

If you have a fainting couch, quick! Get it on eBay gratuitous Apr 2017 #13

I hope he makes... 3catwoman3 Apr 2017 #18

President Obama isn't running for office DefenseLawyer Apr 2017 #21

Hillary wasn't running when she gave those speeches either. nt LAS14 Apr 2017 #24

Another tiny detail! LisaM Apr 2017 #34

riiight loyalsister Apr 2017 #42

What would be the difference from her getting a forward payment from banks etc for righting a book uponit7771 Apr 2017 #70

Same difference loyalsister Apr 2017 #97

That's if a person saw WS as 100% the problem, if not then that position of hanging out with the ... uponit7771 Apr 2017 #98

Were you alive in 2008? loyalsister Apr 2017 #99

Not only alive but worked in finance and knows the root of the issue more than 99.7% of the people uponit7771 Apr 2017 #100

didn't lose your house, or your job, or your retirement fund, or your kids' college fund? loyalsister Apr 2017 #104

Yes, and still know WS well regulated is like any other industry not evil uponit7771 Apr 2017 #105

This exchange has not been about you loyalsister Apr 2017 #124

Maybe I lost the translation here bottom line; not everyone saw WS as the boogyman so Clinton gettin uponit7771 Apr 2017 #145

I agree Caliman73 Apr 2017 #149

+1 uponit7771 Apr 2017 #169

A lot of people did see it as a deal breaker loyalsister Apr 2017 #155

A regulated WS is not a deal breaker to me, her speeches when they came out were about oppurtunity uponit7771 Apr 2017 #170

Obviously, her intention was to run and it was not a secret karynnj Apr 2017 #174

Why shouldn't he or any other person asked to give a speech be paid for it? mcar Apr 2017 #25

It's weird isn't it? OKNancy Apr 2017 #29

Purity tests, but only for certain politicians mcar Apr 2017 #32

Repugs get paid left and right but you don't hear a peep from the Dem critics about that. brush Apr 2017 #39

Yep! mcar Apr 2017 #40

Do we ever bring up the speaking fees for white males? ismnotwasm Apr 2017 #43

I'm HIP !!! uponit7771 Apr 2017 #71

Well maybe your friend needs to pay more attention melman Apr 2017 #76

To this degree? ismnotwasm Apr 2017 #80

+1 betsuni Apr 2017 #85

It was tried with Sanders during the primary... TCJ70 Apr 2017 #95

As I recall, though it has been a while, Reagan was pretty white. QC Apr 2017 #103

Same with Hillary - if someone wants to pay that much treestar Apr 2017 #44

BFD... 400k buys exactly 2 Mar-a-lago memberships MedusaX Apr 2017 #61

The fees are not important Freethinker65 Apr 2017 #64

I have zero problem with President Obama being paid the going rate Gothmog Apr 2017 #65

I don't care what ex-presidents make for their speeches. vi5 Apr 2017 #67

sorry, was anyone under the illusion he wasn't going to cash in? Skittles Apr 2017 #72

Sadly, no. But $60 million in book sales would be enough to feather their nest for.... Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2017 #147

I'm appalled HopeAgain Apr 2017 #75

For accepting money for work ?!?!?!? Your fvcking with us right? uponit7771 Apr 2017 #106

Lots of pearls of being Cha Apr 2017 #112

I'm not googly eyed over any politician HopeAgain Apr 2017 #132

Dodd-Frank, and they hated him for it BeyondGeography Apr 2017 #135

Dodd Frank and consumer protection GulfCoast66 Apr 2017 #180

Dodd Frank has done nothing for the working class HopeAgain Apr 2017 #181

Nice attempt at deflection GulfCoast66 Apr 2017 #183

President Obama is entitled to earn a living.. Has anyone heard the speech Cha Apr 2017 #111

You'll be alright. Just rub some dirt on it. Walk it off. etc. BannonsLiver Apr 2017 #157

Naw, I'm getting pretty used to this HopeAgain Apr 2017 #162

... BannonsLiver Apr 2017 #163

I'm with her HopeAgain Apr 2017 #164

Quid pro quo for a speech?? LAS14 Apr 2017 #179

I think the point is always, do we know why you are getting that kind of money from this JCanete Apr 2017 #77

The optics are bad cause people take money for work !?!?! uponit7771 Apr 2017 #108

that was cute but you actually know why the optics are bad. Tell me why they aren't, JCanete Apr 2017 #109

Nope, thought the argument against speaking fees last year was sexist are the least and ... uponit7771 Apr 2017 #110

well shit, it's the norm to take speaking money after holding office, and what ever could be wrong JCanete Apr 2017 #114

But he's a sellout Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 2017 #81

They should wait until they at least hear Cha Apr 2017 #113

I was hoping he'd get more CreekDog Apr 2017 #102

One of the symptoms of Obama Derangement Syndrome is never ever ever ever never betsuni Apr 2017 #116

Exactly betsuni.. He's getting paid for his experience & work.. Shocking! Cha Apr 2017 #123

U rock Cha! ucrdem Apr 2017 #128

Mahalo, ucr! Cha Apr 2017 #129

Agree with you 1000%. The double standard is ridic ucrdem Apr 2017 #130

you don't have to go anywhere near that far to have a problem with this. Again, when we make it JCanete Apr 2017 #125

Great point; Democrats need to draw a much clearer line BeyondGeography Apr 2017 #126

President Obama is not "in politics" CakeGrrl Apr 2017 #133

Whoosh. BeyondGeography Apr 2017 #134

Being paid big bucks by institutions does not mean one is on the take. betsuni Apr 2017 #138

not what I said. at all actually. I said it makes it harder for us to call the GOP out. It muddies JCanete Apr 2017 #171

+1 uponit7771 Apr 2017 #146

He'll probably wind up donating it if he doesn't cancel altogether. ucrdem Apr 2017 #127

I just wonder why a black man and a woman are suppose all american girl Apr 2017 #136

What makes you think that we'd feel any different if it was a white man? FiveGoodMen Apr 2017 #152

I have never heard anyone be upset until it was a woman and a black man all american girl Apr 2017 #176

Thanks, Trevor Noah. Skidmore Apr 2017 #150

There's more than one point to consider. Orsino Apr 2017 #151

Question on number 3 BannonsLiver Apr 2017 #158

He is, or was, a domestic purchaser. Orsino Apr 2017 #161

Nicely put! Agree with you completely. Madam45for2923 Apr 2017 #165

You miss the point - Obama is not a future candidate for anything karynnj Apr 2017 #173

Some might say quid pro quo. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #177

What was the speech about ?? kentuck Apr 2017 #178

I'm tired of the BS. we can do it Apr 2017 #182