I'm a little disappointed with the outrage and conspiracies surround the speaking fees.

[DanTex]

There's so much missed opportunity. The Clintons earned $153M from speaking fees, of which $7.7M came from banks. And it's great that furious Hillary bashers are furious about the spooky conspiracies that were no doubt hatched during those speeches.

But that's only 5% of the money! There's a whole $145M left. There are so many more spooky conspiracies!

For example:
The National Association of Convenience Stores.
The National Camping Association.
The Gap.
Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
The Fragrance Foundation.
World Travel and Tourism Council.
US Green Building Council.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-03/every-hillary-and-bill-clinton-speech-2013-fees

So let's see a little more creativity! How about "Hillary is a pawn of Big Camping." "Hillary is shamelessly shilling for the Travel and Tourism oligarchs." There's so much conspiratorial potential here, don't let it go to waste!

[beam me up scottie]

1. I'm shocked.

[Hekate]

81. Was the Brotherhood of Electrical Workers involved?

[RKP5637]

2. I like both Bernie and Hillary. If anyone wanted me to speak, I would be collecting fees too.

LOL! I don't think anyone wants to pay me to speak. Usually I'm told to shut my trap! LOL!

[TTUBatfan2008]

3. I'm just curious...

What do you think of Robert Rubin and Larry Summers? By the way, the speaking fees aren't the only money they got from Wall Street. They received hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign donations (just like Obama, just like GWB, just like Romney, just like Jeb Bush, etc.).

[DanTex]

8. Not a big fan, although Summers sometimes says reasonable things (but other times not).

What does this have to do with Hillary being owned by the National Camping Association?

[TTUBatfan2008]

12. LOL...

I was just curious what you thought of their policies. I believe their involvement in the Clinton administration (and Obama administration) is pretty strong evidence of how close these politicians are to Wall Street. They didn't just get speaking fees, they got hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions over the years. Obama did too and so do the Republican candidates.

[DanTex]

17. Oh, their policies. I think that the Clinton deregulation in the 90s was bad and set the stage

for what happened later. I think Obama has been good, and Dodd Frank is a big accomplishment.

BTW, Summers isn't really a banker. He's an academic and government economist.

[TTUBatfan2008]

18. Bad ideas though, wouldn't you agree?

I was disappointed as hell when Obama named him as one of his main advisers. Needed people with cleaner hands who didn't help meltdown the economy. It's like Hank Paulson being the CEO at Goldman and then the "savior" of the economy as Treasury Secretary when everything started melting down under GWB. Outrageous, lol.

[DanTex]

24. The 90s deregulation, yes. But on policy, Obama has been (mostly) good.

Dodd-Frank was not a bad idea, it was good. I was disappointed that Summers was there too, but his views have mellowed a bit since the 90s, from what I've seen and read.

But like I said, Summers is not a banker. One of the guys who was a banker (from Goldman) was Gary Gensler, and he was widely considered one of the toughest financial regulators, to the point where there were articles calling him Wall Street's enemy number 1 and that sort of thing.

It goes to show that being outraged about the very fact that someone has had contact with Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan or whatever, and assuming this automatically means there are evil and not trustworthy, is silly.

[riversedge]

19. Both Hillary and Bernie will do what they can to overturn

Citizens United. They both are in favor of campaign finance reform

[TTUBatfan2008]

21. I really hope so...

Gotta overturn it, no doubt about it.

[earthside]

65. I doubt it.

I believe Hillary on overturning Citizens United like I believe her on being against the TPP.

If she got to the White House (which I doubt), why would she try and overturn Citizens United when it got her there?
Hillary is all about big money and hobnobbing with the power elite ... she would never get around to doing anything substantive to get rid of Citizens United.

And, of course, she'll absolutely be 'pragmatic' and 'realistic' on the TPP if by some miracle she became president ... it would be signed and passed by her Repuglican Congress within three months of Inauguration Day.

Thankfully, the Democratic voters are wise to her and she'll be a loser just like she was eight years ago.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. What conspiracy? They were offered pay to perform. They accepted.

[bvf]

73. And as the old southern saying goes,

"You got to dance with them what brung ya." Thats a lot of dancing, by anyone's measure.

[libdem4life]

82. Molly Ivins... RIP.

[bvf]

97. Yep!

Not sure that she originated it, but I definitely credit her with my learning about it.

Now there was an engaging woman who knew bullshit when she heard it. I wish she were still with us.

[KittyWampus]

5. The Green Building Council? THE HORROR

LOOK AWAY!

[elias49]

27. Hahaha! You out-astuted me Wampus. Well done!

Way to express an opinion!

[KittyWampus]

124. LOOK AWAY LOOK AWAY THE CAMPERS

[farleftlib]

6. It's a legitimate concern, not a conspiracy theory

She claims there's not going to be any quid pro quo, nothing to see here, but won't release the transcripts.

Can't have it both ways.

[Hekate]

85. She has not refused to release the transcripts.

"Looking into it" is not refusal. If I were Hillary, I'd want to refresh my mind on whatever bullet-points were in the transcripts, because sure as God made little green apples, someone doing oppo research will comb through them looking for a gotcha.

That IS what you want to do, isn't it?

[Duckhunter935]

105. she basically did

She says anyone tgat has ever given a paid speech must release them before she will.

[Dems to Win]

7. No conspiracy, no artful smear. Just Hillary cashing in

Going on the speaking circuit is a common way that former high government officials cash in, becoming rich as a result of their public service.

And many of us out here in the real world see it as kind of sleazy. It is legal, but I don't respect former public servants who cash in.

Most public officials understand that cashing in is what you do after you've completed your public service. Going back to the voters asking for support after you've cashed in is a pretty difficult proposition.

I have to wonder at all the political consultants for Clinton, Obama, and the DNC who got on board the Hillary train for 2016. The entire Dem Establishment endorsed her as the one and only DNC-approved candidate, all of them knowing about Hillary's time on the speaking circuit.

The entire Dem Establishment was so very out of touch that they never even imagined a $250,000 speech to CitiBank or Goldman Sachs might be a hindrance to electing a Democratic candidate. They deserve to go down to defeat for their obliviousness.

Bernie Sanders 2016

[TTUBatfan2008]

15. Campaign contributions

are a bigger issue than speaking fees. The campaign contributions have basically gotten a pass while everyone obsesses over the speaking fees, lol.

[Dems to Win]

26. No, we've not forgotten about campaign contributions

America can't tolerate another President who refuses to prosecute Wall Street criminals

It seems reasonable to assume Wall Street contributions prevented President Obama from taking aggressive action to hold people accountable for crashing the economy and stealing millions of homes from Americans via mortgage fraud.

I also think corporate contributions led President Obama to kill the public option from the ACA.

Bernie's campaign financing, avg $27 contributions from ordinary people, is EVERYTHING.

[djean111]

9. This, in addition to your disappointment that Bernie's supporters are not switching to Hillary

because you said so? What a bummer!

I prescribe watching the Kitten Bowl!
http://livestream.com/hallmarkchannel/kittenbowl

If you are still sad, there is always the Puppy Bowl........

[TubbersUK]

10. This is new to me:

As Politico cautions, the disclosure omits an unknown number of speeches that the Clintons delivered while directing the payment or honoraria to the Clinton Foundation, despite instructions on the and guidance from the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, saying that honoraria directed to a charity should be reported.

[questionseverything]

30. me too

good catch

[libdem4life]

83. Clinton = Shady

[Duckhunter935]

106. interesting

It just gets even more dirty

[840high]

108. Thanks.

[hoosierlib]

11. yeah...and let's not even talk about the CGI

$2 Billion raised and staffed with her cronies...I'm sure there was no "pay-to-play" going on there...

[Hekate]

87. Do you have the slightest clue what the CGI does with its time and money?

Get back to me when you do.

[hoosierlib]

95. Yes...and do you know who works for it?

And how much money they make?

[NurseJackie]

13. Where is Emily Litella when you need her?

[JustAnotherGen]

34. Plus 10000

[Contrary1]

63. You called?

[Hekate]

88. "It's always something"

[cali]

14. I'm very disappointed that ANYONE can't see the problem.

Actually, pretty horrified.

[farleftlib]

20. Exactly

It's wrong that the republicans do it, and it's wrong for our party too. It's different if you cash in after you leave office, but this is just a huge conflict of interest. Period.

[JudyM]

33. +1

I hate to say this about anyone, but refusing to see the glaring conflicts of interest issue here makes me understand a little better why some people aren't for Bernie. They just don't see. They call it a smear even though it's objective truth, they claim double standard even though there's no assertion that Bernie profited from disproportionately large personal speaking fees and coincidentally has been easy on those parties, or the other conflicts between her with UBS, etc. Somehow whatever she does is ok.

[riversedge]

16. oh. Hill is nothing but a shrill for the ---US Green Building Council

Thought I would add just in case.

BTW

[elias49]

28. Well you're right. She is

shrill

[m-lekktor]

47. a SHRILL? wtf....I think you meant shill but SHRILL is kinda cute coming from a supporter or hers!

[mak3cats]

22. Me, I'm a little disappointed with the speaking fees themselves. 'Nuff said.

[Hekate]

90. I'd have asked for more. How about you? Also I would have checked to see what men were getting.

[treestar]

23. I love this post!

Just brings out how oversimplified it has gotten!



Those Fragrant Oligarchs! I can smell them from my house!

[Hekate]

91. Attar of Roses is what it is

[libdem4life]

25. Uh, there is one common thread here...in case you missed it..they are all National and Establishment

and they all paid ginormous speaking fees. What for? Just to gain an audience with HRC? And for nothing in return? There are a lot of lobbyists and groups fawning for favors. Their supposed access...to which she has none at present...is to pay the market rate. Where is the National Chambers of Commerce?

Actually, this makes it even worse. Anything with Council or Foundation or Association or National before or behind it wants HRC to "speak". She holds no office...just the implication that she is, well, inevitable has raised a whole lot of money.

I'll await the Bernie list and the fees earned For His Own Pocketbook.

[Recursion]

69. You pay Hillary Clinton to speak for exactly one reason

To be able to say "Hillary Clinton gave our keynote".

That's it. It's why I literally don't care what she said: neither did they. The speech was a collection of vapid bromides that nobody was listening to, and I can't believe people are putting this much energy into finding out which particular vapid bromides she used that day. Who cares?

[libdem4life]

74. I agree..she's the master of nuance and they already know what she'll do. But IDK if she loses the

nomination. Wonder what her fee would be then...a two-time Presidential loser. Bill, I understand. He won the Presidency and his experience and stature holds. Hillary? Doubt it.

[Hekate]

92. Recursion: I think you hit the nail on the head.

[libdem4life]

103. A Board of Directors has to authorize a speaking fee. Are you trying to tell me that these Boards

of Directors just wanted to have a famous name as a speaker for their egos, willing to pay 6 figures, and didn't want anything else? What drivel. They didn't get to their position by being dunces.

And vapid bromides? The aforementioned know the difference. Again, there is a reason we are on a discussion board and they are managing multiple millions of dollars. It's not rocket science, really.

Nor does the hilarity about the "insignificant" groups matter...they control money. They are willing to pay money for something in return...and they must answer and justify all expenditures to stockholders. Sorry...just a pretty face or popular last name won't cut it there.

I can't believe the naivete or willful denial around here.

[Recursion]

104. Yes

just wanted to have a famous name as a speaker for their egos, willing to pay 6 figures, and didn't want anything else?

Absolutely. You clearly haven't dealt with many boards if that seems strange to you. (Also plenty of orgs don't require board approval for speakers.)

[libdem4life]

107. They are chosen for accountability...usually don't get paid. Stockholders care a great deal, thus

Boards of Directors. It has to do with their dividends...and they control the Boards, or withdraw their funds. It's called a corporation and it's how they do business. And yes, I've had a good deal of experience...including 501c3s...who tend to be even more concerned about budgets.

[think]

29. Cherry picking the noncontroversial speeches out of the list doesn't make the controversial ones

Disappear....

And many that LOOK noncontroversial in that list are in reality very controversial.

Take GTCR for instance. That's GOP governor Bruce Rainer's former multibillion dollar health care industry conglomerate that owns over two hundred companies. And ya its a big can of worms if you look at what's all hidden under the GTCR umbrella as far as Medicare fraud and other scandals are concerned....

And there's plenty more you choose to gloss over like GE, Xerox, drug companies, and associations listed that are basically lobbying fronts for huge multinational corporations.

But ya pick out a few of the less noxious ones and pretend that's the bulk of what's there.....

[DanTex]

31. Hey, the more conspiracies the better. Honestly I think that anyone who's every been paid

any money by any corporation for anything should be disqualified from public office. The whole concept of providing a service in exchange for money is the problem here.

[think]

41. These are facts Dan. She was paid by corporations that have dubious histories & benefit from US govt

policies that Clinton has and could oversee. Potential conflicts of interest do exist.

For instance. GE is now attempting to sell it's personal loan portfolio to Goldman Sachs. This couldn't happen under Glass Steagall. We all know Clinton isn't supporting the efforts to create a new Glass Steagall.

Facts aren't a conspiracy. Facts are relevant.

[DanTex]

45. Are there any corporations that it's OK to be paid by, in your view?

Are people not supposed to work for corporations? And if they do, and later serve in office, does the fact that a corporation for which the previously worked make profit prove that there is corruption? It's gonna start getting a little tricky here.

An interesting side note about GE -- the fact that they are basically getting rid of their finance division, which used to be big, is frequently attributed at least in part to new regulations in place under Dodd Frank, the very bill that Hillary and Obama bashers claim was some kind of toothless giveaway to the industry. And yet GE is one of those corporations that paid Hillary for a speech.

You're right, facts are relevant.

[think]

50. Please feel free to try & defend Goldman Sachs all you want. GE benefits big time from Hillary:

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

And again. Goldman Sachs couldn't buy GE's assets if Glass Steagall still existed. This is a prime example of commercial and personal banking lines being crossed.

I've got a Superbowl party to go to. Have fun....

[Hekate]

93. Oooo, let us know if the goalposts get moved in the Superbowl too.

[think]

121. Whatever. Hope you had a nice day.

[think]

122. You can talk about goalposts. I'll try to discuss the historical background of GS and GTCR.

Actual companies with sordid histories that involve US government agencies and US laws being broken that paid Hillary Clinton millions of dollars to speak at them.

Goal posts...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-16/nursing-home-owners-may-be-liable-for-fraud-judge-says

Please feel free to tell Democratic Senator Carl Levin all about those "goal posts"

[EdwardBernays]

32. give us a break

Corporations and States that donated money to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State were TWICE as likely to have their deals approved as those that didn't.

Clinton approved a Saudi/Boeing deal worth 29 BILLION, against the advice of pretty much everyone. That came AFTER the Saudis donated 10m to the Clinton Foundation and after Boeing paid Bill $200,000 for a speech.

Both of those groups - the Saudis and Boeing also share a lobbying firm... the one owned by Clinton's campaign chairman.

No one can PROVE it was quid pro quo, but the pattern is all VERY visible and even boldly displayed... give her money and she'll do what you want.

Heck, her current Campaign Chairman OWNS one of the biggest lobbying firms in DC... with such clients as.... Boeing and Saudi Arabia...

C'mon now.

It's amazing to me that so many Hillary supporters and just think it's all a big conspiracy against her, noticing these things.

Go here:

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

If you can read this and HONESTLY think it seems completely above board then you'll never understand why so many people are upset, and why your mocking of what so many - from across the political spectrum - see as obvious is exactly why Hillary's campaign is flailing.

[DanTex]

37. Thanks for bringing the Clinton foundation into this. If I have time, I'll make

a list of all the evils thing that it has done. There's a lot of good conspiratorial material there too. Did you know that they are helping make HIV treatment available to people all over the globe? Conspiracy!

[Kaleva]

38. Against the advice of pretty much everyone?

Such as whom? Israel?

" Israel didn’t oppose a $60 billion U.S. arms sale to Saudi Arabia, in part because the Pentagon agreed to sell the Israelis at least 20 new Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 jets, according to the new book by Robert Gates.

The 2010 sale of 154 new and modernized Boeing Co. F-15 jets and attack helicopters, plus parts and munitions, “especially exercised” the Israeli leadership as “it came at a bad time in the relationship,” the former defense secretary wrote."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-09/gates-says-israel-gave-in-on-saudi-arms-after-f-35-pledge

[betsuni]

35. Thank you for this. If Hillary becomes president she's going to make us all go camping, isn't she.

I hate camping. I don't like the woods. It's scary, especially at night. I'm scared of bears. Mountains are dangerous, so are rivers. What if you don't put out your campfire properly and start a forest fire and accidentally burn up a national forest? I guess I'll have to buy a tent and "gear" and special socks. I'm becoming anxious just thinking about it. And the Travel and Tourism Council -- my god, we're going to be forced to take trips. Thanks, Hillary! NOT. My eyes are opened, finally, to Hillary's true agenda. I want to stay home. I'm voting for Bernie Sanders.

[SidDithers]

36. DU rec...nt

Sid

[Bjorn Against]

39. So your argument is essentially 7.7 million is nothing when compared to all the other money she took

Banks are not the only corporate entities that are screwing over the people. You cite The Gap as if if they are innocuous but they rely on cheap labor and corporate trade deals that allow them to exploit workers in overseas sweatshops.

If your argument is seriously that taking 7.7 million from the banks is acceptable as long as you take a lot more corporate money on top of it, well good luck with that argument.

[DanTex]

43. More or less. Even if it was only the 7.7, knowing what actually happens at corporate events,

I still wouldn't care -- I care about actual policy, and about beating the GOP, not this kind of silliness -- but given that it's a tiny fraction, the whole thing is even more ludicrous.

Let me ask you something. Does having taken money from a corporation in exchange for a service taint anyone who engages in that practice? Meaning that almost everyone who has ever worked in the private sector is tainted? How does this work?

[Bjorn Against]

49. Not everyone who has worked in the private sector gets paid 200k to give a speech

Sorry Dan but comparing a pay check received by a ordinary private sector employee to a person taking hundreds of thousands of dollars to speak for an hour is pretty lame.

There is a big difference between someone who has to work full time for five years to get 200k from a company and someone who can make the same amount by giving an hour long speech.

[DanTex]

52. No, but if you're vote most admired woman in America 15 years running, then you do.

There are other people who do paid speeches, of course, like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky (who according to google gets $20K to $30K a pop, outrage!!!!), but not many people have the stature and the draw of a Hillary Clinton.

It's not so different in other fields. Brad Pitt gets paid a lot for making movies. LeBron James gets paid a lot for playing basketball.

[Bjorn Against]

57. If Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky were running for President that might be an issue

When a person is seeking the Presidency their finances are put under greater scrutiny than the common citizen. Neither Moore or Chomsky can directly influence policy, if Hillary became President she would be able to so you really can't compare her to Michael Moore.

[DanTex]

58. But if they did, we could count on you to object that their speaking fees have corrupted them.

That's good to know -- we wouldn't want to have people like that with any political kind of influence.

You know what would be really funny? If either Bernie or Jane Sanders ever got paid to give a speech anywhere. I don't know if they have -- probably not, Bernie's been in office the whole time and Jane doesn't have that high of a profile -- but the excuses you'd see here would be something to behold. Maybe Jane Sanders through her whole university thing rose to the level of paid speaking gigs. Hmm...

[Bjorn Against]

62. You might have a point if I had said that all speaking fees are bad, but I did not say that.

I think it is perfectly fair to look into where a candidate got their money and judge whether or not there is a conflict. I don't think all speaking fees are bad, but if major corporations are paying huge sums of money to a candidate's personal bank account that can not be ignored.

[Lucinda]

40. :)

[Fumesucker]

42. Do tell?

[beam me up scottie]

44. He is entertaining, isn't he?

[stevenleser]

46. It's one of the silliest criticism I've seen by Democrats of another Democrat in my life.

OMG, speaking fees!!

[libdem4life]

79. Get real. It's the number of zeros that is, uh, suspect. Future benefits of an inevitable President

and a former very friendly Secretary of State. Not to worry, when she's back to being just a US citizen, a two-time loser, at least one of those zeros will drop off. Speaker venues/fees can be quite fickle.

[stevenleser]

94. Lol, nope, sorry, it's still a silly joke. Nt

[libdem4life]

98. 6 figure fees are not a joke. They are purchased influence. Not silly, either. There is intent.

and it's not flippant...like this response.

[asuhornets]

48. n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

51. Who would of thunk it , Are you in the Used Car business ?

[NowSam]

53. 153 million is obscene

Taking and raking in that kind of money is to use your position as a trusted public servant and betray that trust. If it was a Republican they would be condemned for the same. If they were Republicans they would be called money launderers or bought and paid for pawns and puppets.

[Chemisse]

54. The speaking fees don't bother me.

She provided a service (big name speaker) and they paid her handsomely.

Giving a candidate money without getting a service in return is what makes me nervous. Then the candidate owes a debt.

[Metric System]

55. You damn well KNOW she's beholden to Big Camping!!!

[cherokeeprogressive]

56. Hillary is a pawn.

[asuhornets]

59. They have nothing else..eom

[Vinca]

60. Imagine, if you will, Hillary standing in front of the banksters and

telling them it was not their fault, that the whole "village" is responsible for the 2008 meltdown. BS to that.

[malokvale77]

61. I'll start with your first example.

According to sourcewatch: National Association of Convenience Stores (Long-time tobacco industry proxy/surrogate group): Stands up for tobacco industry causes.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/National_Association_of_Convenience_Stores

[Aerows]

64. If I was a Hillary Clinton supporter

I'd be disappointed, as well. Clearly she doesn't want the voting public to know the views she espoused before the Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase elites.

I think that is pretty much shorthand for "I will look like Romney and the 47% fail if the electorate hears my speeches."

[Wilms]

66. "...with the outrage and conspiracies..."

Toss "conspiracy" into a word salad and you're an instant superior in your own mind.

[zalinda]

67. If she was so smart, where was her judgment

in accepting these speaking fees? She SHOULD know that even the appearance of a impropriety leads to problems, ie. Watergate.

Z

[libdem4life]

89. Unless your name is Clinton. They have appeared to be improper for years and have mastered

getting away with it. The real news will be when it comes to an end. She is smart, but not as adept as Bill. Only a matter of time.

[wouldsman]

68. Not conspiracy, but oligarchy.

That is how an oligarchy works. Elected officials take massive amounts of money and work to implement policies that are seen as positive to those donors. They also work to convince the masses that that is not what they are doing. Oldest game in the book right.
The fact that OP does not get this means that Hillary has successfully convinced them that she is the rare individual that can take massive amounts of cash and not be "bought". To her and Bill's credit they have used a very ingenious way to collect this money- call it speaking fees and those who are easily duped will not recognize it as bribery.

[LS_Editor]

70. Sanders has changed the race, and many people are still struggling with that concept.

[highprincipleswork]

71. Release the transcripts. Problem solved. Deflect or dodge, doesn't add up to what she has said.

[bowens43]

72. well of course you are....... LOL

[Spitfire of ATJ]

75. Earning a few hundred thousand wouldn't be an issue....

Earning a few hundred million is an issue.

[raindaddy]

76. $250 k an hour for a speaking engagement.. And they only made 7.7 million from the banks.

So what could Hillry Clinton possibly telling the banks they don't already know that's worth 7.7 million dollars?

Hillary's an ok speaker but from the crowds she's drawing I'm pretty sure Hillary's not 7.7 worth million dollars in entertainment value..

The only reason the Clinton's are getting these gigs is because they were elected or appointed as public servants..

So I'm wondering why you aren't outraged that they're accepting millions of dollars from banks that have an adverseral relationship with the people who put them in the position to accept what amounts to legalized bribes..

[DanTex]

78. The same stuff she told the National Camping Association.

It's not really about information, it's about having execs feel important, and showing that your organization is a "big deal" because you have Hillary Clinton speaking at your event. You could also get, I dunno, Paul Begala for cheaper, but that doesn't have the same prestige.

[raindaddy]

99. If she telling the Wall Street banks the same thing she telling the NCA

then she should simply release the transcripts of the speeches, and this will all go away..

Not sure why the CEO of a giant Wall Street bank needs Hillary to feel important when he/she's making a ton more money and arguably has more power.

[DanTex]

100. It's kind of like Obama and releasing the birth certificate. Is that really going to matter to

people who pursue this kind of thing in the first place?

[raindaddy]

101. It's nothing like Obama releasing his birth certificate....

And it matters because people suspect that Hillary is being paid for future favors..
So the content of the speeches could be very revealing.. If she doesn't relase them them the assumption will be she's campaigning as a reformer but in reality she's in the pocket of the banks

[DanTex]

102. Depends where you stand. The people who really really thought Obama was

Kenyan would disagree. They thought that the content of Obama's birth certificate would be revealing. And when it wasn't did that change any of their minds?

[raindaddy]

111. Lame.. The were also people who thought the world was really really flat...

I'd say the odds Hillary wasn't telling the Wall Street execs exactly what they wanted to hear is about the same as Obama being born in Kenya..

There are a growing number of people who resent the idea of being use as a steppingstone to obscene wealth... The system has been corrupted by unlimited amounts of money, politicians are being bought off.. People are outraged for a reason..

[DanTex]

113. Yes, there were. Good point. There were also people who thought that Hillary had

doctored the coins used to break ties in the Iowa caucus.

[raindaddy]

115. There are also people that think Wall Street Bank execs paid the Clinton's $7.5 million to .........

help them feel better about themselves....

[DanTex]

116. You left out the Camping Association. Those are the guys you really need to look out for!

[raindaddy]

118. Not worried about the camping association...

Their execs get paid a fraction of what the Wall Street execs receive, but when they get big enough to take down the economy get back to me...

[DanTex]

119. Maybe you should be. Those campers can be a crafty bunch!

[raindaddy]

120. No worries, Hillary will march right into their s'more roast and tell em to, "cut it out!!!"

[wolfie001]

77. I wonder if she talked to Goldman Sachs about.....

.....the importance of the Social Security Trust Fund? Prob'ly not

[Hekate]

80. The Fragrance Foundation conspiracies just write themselves. The odor of sanctity....

Not all the perfumes of Araby...

So much rank envy, so little time.

[DanTex]

84. I don't like the smell of this...

Sorry. Wow, that was a horrible joke.

[Hekate]

86. lolz

[Hekate]

96. The National Camping Association was supposed to ensure a tent big enough for the whole Dem Party...

(spooky voice) ....But DID they?!

I think not!

[Glamrock]

109. Dan, with all due respects

We can argue the minutiae of this all day long. You're arguing with political junkies. We are a minority of the population. The majority of the population views this the same as the people you're trying to insult here. Whether or not it will influence her decisions is irrelevant. There is a very strong appearance of such to the majority of the population.

Same thing with whether or not she's progressive or not. I think she is, generally speaking. But it don't matter. What matters is people are seeing video of her claiming the moderate badge followed by her claiming to be a progressive. They are seeing someone the vast majority doesn't like, saying anything to get elected. And being supported by corporate donations. That's just the way it is and I think, deep down, you know.

[DanTex]

110. We can also argue about what "the majority of the population" thinks all day long.

I'm thinking the majority of the population doesn't even know about this. However, the majority of the population has heard the word "socialism" and doesn't like it. When I point that out, I get accused of red baiting, and then lectured about how a few speeches about free healthcare is going radically alter the majority of the population's general political outlook. LOL.

And by the way, the majority of the population isn't progressive. Self-described liberals are about 25%, moderates 35% and conservatives 35%.

[Glamrock]

112. True, we can

But a negative favorability kinda proves my point about the majority.

As far as socialism tags? The GOP has cried wolf for so long, it's becoming an outdated boogeyman. And, there are indy's and Republicans donating to and supporting Bernie....the socialist. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't see it.

[DanTex]

114. Favorability is far from the only category people use to decide on a president.

And favorability ratings go up and down. The numbers this far out from the GE don't mean much.

Socialism polls atrociously. Less than 50% of Americans would consider voting for a socialist. And unlike people's perceptions of individual politicians, general political beliefs like this don't move quickly. You're not going to see the fraction of voters identifying as liberal or conservative change much in the next 10 months.

I'm sure that you and your lefty friends have no problem with socialism. Neither do I or my lefty friends. But as you say, what it's really about is the majority of Americans. And a socialist proposing tax increases is not someone they will vote for in the general.

[Glamrock]

117. Any other year, I'd be in full agreement Dan

This one, I'm not so sure. But, good luck in the primary. Both candidates are superior to the other side. Shit, Lincoln Chaffee was superior to the other side.

[Iggy Knorr]

123. Its a conspiracy by Big Timeout

It's a conspiracy!11