I agree with Peter Daou re Sen Warren

[mcar]

Link to tweet

[monmouth4]

1. Me too. He should get whatever they are willing to pay him. He has an agent, that's where those

decisions are made.

[mcar]

2. Yes

And it is entirely possible to sometimes disagree with a politician you admire, I.e. Warren.

[monmouth4]

3. Yes, definitely agree..n/t

[yallerdawg]

4. I agree, too.

Ex-presidents paid their dues. Put their lives and family's lives on the line.

Their obligation to me ends the day they leave office.

[Afromania]

8. here here

He earned it and isn't running for anything or lobbying for anything.

[mopinko]

10. he absolutely, in a way no other pres has, put his life on the line.

and his family's life, too.

he is entitled to rake in whatever he can rake in. and i have no doubt he will put that money to good use. i dont see him buying yachts or gold toilets w it.

[brer cat]

120. Good points, mopinko. nt

[randome]

5. Agreed.

It was horrible the way some DUers crucified Clinton for the same thing.

[mcar]

6. And gave fodder to the Rs for the GE

[fun n serious]

7. I'm offended at the whole thing.

It seems like the only people who get grief for paid speeches are women and black men. No grief for Trump, Bill Clinton, George Bush or any other white dude who gets paid to speak.

[mopinko]

11. this

is not lost on me.

[fun n serious]

20. Women and People of color should not be paid so much money for a speech.

How dare they compete with the white men.

[sheshe2]

49. THIS

[lapucelle]

53. Plus, they're taking jobs

away from beleaguered white men who never get a break.

[brer cat]

122. +++++

[AgadorSparticus]

138. +1,000!!!

[Rilgin]

28. You have to be kidding.

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.

[SomethingNew]

125. Great post. N/T

[Hekate]

75. Al Gore got kicked around here, as did John Edwards before we even knew about his sins

Oddly, it seems to be a popular sport among some Dems, who seem to believe all our leaders should end their lives dirt poor.

[WePurrsevere]

119. This seems to be the bigger factor...

It certainly does seem like some Dems see all capitalism and money as 'evil' and being 'dirt poor' is always somehow more 'noble'.

While $400k is a whole lot of money, it's more than 16 yrs of income (which is Soc Sec) for my husband and I, I also know that $400k is a drop in the bucket to the big banks and corps. Knowing this, IMO if they want the honor of having the man who was the 1st black president of the United States and who's still popular and respected by millions after leaving office, than they can darn well pay him a healthy fee to speak at one of their events and IMO he shouldn't be berated for it.

IDK... maybe I'm an odd progressive but how much money someone makes or has isn't the issue for me, it's how they use it and treat others they share this world with that matters to me. (For just one 'rich' example compare Don (the impeachable traitorous con) Trump to the late Senator Ted Kennedy who left this country a better place and tried his damnedest right up to the end to make it even more so.)

[Rincewind]

118. You forgot one.

A certain donald trump has also given speeches for which he was paid large sums of money. Somehow, no one complained during the election.

[Gothmog]

9. I also agree with Mr. Daou

[Cha]

109. Does this mean she doesn't want President Obama to

campaign with her in 2018?

[killbotfactory]

12. He's getting paid 400k from a the companies that destroyed the economy

Before he got into office.

What the fuck kind of message does that send to people?

Any normal working person who got fucked by them will not be forgiving.

If he's trying to help the democrats, he failed.

[mcar]

13. And if his speech excoriates them for their actions?

How do you know what he'll speak about?

Oh and this normal working person is just fine with it.

[killbotfactory]

14. He didn't excoriate them when he had the power of the presidency.

And now he's taking 400k of their money. Trump is now in charge and staffed his white house with wall street henchmen.


BAD FUCKING OPTICS

[mcar]

18. Optics? Seriously?

We've got a malignant narcissist and his family and cohorts looting this country and possibly getting us into multiple wars but we are talking about optics?

How about the optics of the first black president being the only former president, and the first female nominee being the only nominee, to be criticized so?

[killbotfactory]

23. They are being criticized because they are figurehead of a party

That is supposed to represent working people! Guess who royally fucked working people? The ones who are, or have been, paying them hundreds of thousands of fucking dollars! Should i be happy or sad that Hillary and Obama have so much money that this amount of money seems like a trifle?

[BainsBane]

30. Why does it bother you so much?

What is so awful about their earning money when other celebrated Democrats are so much wealthier?
What makes you think it's any of your business how they earn a living? They aren't running for office.

You all don't criticize people because they are head of the party. In fact, we far more often seeing people go out of their way to excuse any and everything, including enormous wealth, if it's held by the right people.

We don't hear the nostalgia for the FDR and JFK party because progressives resent rich politicians. Those guys were born into enormous inherited wealth. Yet for some reason Obama and Clinton earning a living, after having been born lower-and middle-class respectively, that is unacceptable. John Kerry and Al Gore's wealth, no problem. John Edwards wealth, no problem.

[killbotfactory]

55. If you want democrats to win future elections it should bother you.

But, nah, keep counting on the republicans to fuck up in order to win elections in the future.

[BainsBane]

58. You're going to have to explain to me why

Obama earning $400k from a speech at a healthcare conference hurts Democrats more than a politician who uses a campaign itself to enrich himself to $12.9 million.

You keep focusing on the far lesser amount of money, from someone no longer active in politics. Why?

[killbotfactory]

60. Did the last election not convince you that the GOP being shitbags

Doesn't equal democrats winning?

Wtf?

At this point we'll be lucky if there are future elections.

[BainsBane]

62. I'm not talking about the GOP

I think you know that, or you would not have evaded the question for several posts in a row.

[killbotfactory]

66. Pffft

[riversedge]

103. ;-)

[uponit7771]

111. You mean the one the Russians helped with our are you going to ignore then too?

[BainsBane]

21. better than enriching himself off donations from middle-income

Americans.

Some people have becoming multi-millionaires off the backs of the vulnerable. Would you prefer to have seen him do that?

[killbotfactory]

24. Every rich person got their wealth of the backs of working people.

That's how it works.

[BainsBane]

27. Will you denounce anyone who became rich in the manner I described?

Who became a multi-millionaire by paying himself money from donations from working people?
Or is your scorn reduced for someone like Obama, who isn't rich but trying to earn money?

[killbotfactory]

29. Obama had probably the hardest job on earth.

I give him a lot of leeway. Especially considering the party against him. But for fucks sake, when hundreds of thousands of dollars are being exchanged, by the most powerful economic forces on the planet, normal people who work for a living understand that comes at a price.

[BainsBane]

31. But $10-15 million is fine?

Are you saying you will not denounce that? Why is $400k worse than multi-millions? Why are you avoiding the question I asked?

[killbotfactory]

37. 10-15 million from who?

I don't begrudge anyone who got that wealthy by not exploiting people, or not doing right by the people who helped make them that wealthy. Good for them.

From the people who want to keep people in debt for seeking an education, or from getting medical attention? Yeah, fuck all those horrible people.

[BainsBane]

41. from donations from working people

Obama is speaking at a conference on healthcare. So you don't begrudge someone who became a multi-millionaire by siphoning off money from campaign contributions from hard-earned money of working people, but Obama's being paid $400k to speak at a conference is unacceptable?

The goal should be to take from those who can least afford it, not those who can afford it?

[killbotfactory]

42. Cool story, bro. Nt

[BainsBane]

45. So wealth isn't the problem at all?

I'm not surprised.

[killbotfactory]

54. Wealth is power

Obama is about to perform for those with the most money, and the most power, in the entire fucking world.

[NurseJackie]

46. Something like that would infuriate me.

What kind of person does something like that? Egads!

[BainsBane]

50. But as long as it didn't come from corporations, it's okay

Except for shell corporations. They get a pass. If those corporations finance generations of wealth, then it's okay. Or unless the politician marries into billions generated through a corporation, then it's fine. Or unless the multi-millionaire is a "man of the people," then it's okay. Unless he's the right soft of person, then it's okay.

[melman]

61. So subtle

So clever. Except not really at all.

[BainsBane]

64. Perhaps you can create a list

of who is allowed to be rich and who isn't, and how much each can have? Because the many-sided standards do become difficult to follow.

[BannonsLiver]

134. "I gave him a lot of leeway"

How magnanimous of you.

Others Including myself gave him their support. And yeah, THERE IS A FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

Buh bye

[BainsBane]

74. Is that so?

[Hekate]

72. Oh please

We're back to the old argument about how True Democrats have to wear sackcloth and ashes and live in mud huts and walk everywhere because they are too good for flying. We hashed that all out over Al Gore, for gods'sake.

[killbotfactory]

77. No one person is an island

Everyone who is wealthy made their wealth from the good efforts of other people.

It takes a village.

[Hekate]

83. Does that go for people who write a best seller? Only I know a local woman...

...who had the good fortune to write a string of best selling mysteries. Light stuff. Fun. Is she doing this on the backs of the downtrodden?

When Barack Obama wrote his first book that hit the charts, who did he harm?

[melman]

59. Gee, who could have guessed you'd find a way to slam You Know Who in this?

Besides everybody.

[BainsBane]

63. Interesting conclusion

Do you share the outrage toward Obama?

[Cha]

86. Exactly, and hiring planes to god knows where

in search of god knows what.

[bettyellen]

132. And forgetting the first Goldman speech "scandal" was actually nothing.

[betsuni]

88. +1000000

[Cha]

32. No President Obama didn't fail.. Peter Daou is right..

Link to tweet

[WhiteTara]

15. So is it that only a white republicon man can

receive large sums for speaking to wealthy audiences? I'm glad they are paying him the same.

[mcar]

16. Me too

[BainsBane]

17. And her endorsing the anti-choice candidate in VA

What does it matter if Obama earns speaking fees? He's not running for office again.

He didn't siphon $10-15 million for himself off campaign donations from middle-income Americans. No one seems to care about that.

[mcar]

19. I do not get their line of reasoning at all

[BainsBane]

25. I think it's the same line of reasoning that celebrates as heroes

men born into enormous wealth but despises a woman born-into the middle-class who earns money through book sales and speeches. I literally had people tell me that JFK and FDR were better than Clinton because their wealth was inherited, and they insisted Kerry is better because his came from his wife. It looks to me to be part of the effort to ensure that wealth says in the hands of people they think have a right to wealth, while ensuring those seen as inferior because of race or gender keep to their place. It's the same mentality that insists greater poverty for women and children that results from undermining abortion rights is necessary to promote "economic justice."

[Hekate]

79. Amen, sister

[brer cat]

123. You are so spot on, Bains!

I would love to see that list you requested up thread.

[Cha]

40. And, President Obama Releases his damn Tax Returns..

Full gd Transparency.. How about that Sen Warren?!!!!! Got anything to say about those who haven't?!?

I just got online and haven't read what she said.. but I'm disgusted already.

[BainsBane]

52. True!

[Madam45for2923]

22. Yep! Me too! I agree with Mr. Daou!

[ZX86]

26. Who pays $400,000.00 for a speech?

What kind of person does that?

If your son came to you and said a guy wants me to deliver a package for $1000.00 what would you think?

If your daughter came to you and said a man wants me to have dinner at his hotel for a $1000.00 what would you think?

[Cha]

33. President Barack Obama gets paid that much for a speech.

Link to tweet

[ZX86]

35. That wasn't the question.

The question is what kind of person pays $400,000.00 for a speech?

[BainsBane]

36. A person doesn't. Organizations do.

The statement makes clear he is being paid by a conference on healthcare.

[ZX86]

38. Okay.

What kind of organization pays $400,000.00 for a speech? What kind of people make that decision? How many make that decision? One? Two? Half dozen?

[BainsBane]

43. You can read as well as anyone else

I shouldn't have to spell out for you what is in the post you responded to. If you want to know more, look it up.

[ZX86]

57. So you don't know their names either.

Okay. The question still stands. What kind of person(s) pays $400,000.00 for a speech? How do they make their money? What else do they spend their money on?

[BainsBane]

68. I do because I searched google news

It took all of five seconds. You can do that yourself. I nor anyone else is here to wait on you.

[ZX86]

71. Do you have a link?

I'd appreciate it. I want to see what kind of person(s) pays $400,000,.00 for a speech. Especially person(s) involved in "healthcare". I don't see the Red Cross paying $400,000.00 for speeches. I don't see Doctors Without Borders paying $400,000.00 for speeches. What kind of "healthcare organization" has $400,000.00 to pay for a speech?

[Hekate]

84. You're very special. I'm sure you know how to do research into primary sources. Go to it! nt

[OnDoutside]

104. hahaha :)

[brush]

82. He was President of the United States. There aren't but a handful of those on the planet...

with the unique insight and knowledge from that experience.

That's why he is paid 400k.

He's not some dime-a-dozen guy off the street.

There are only 6 people alive in that stratosphere.

They sure aren't working for the $1000 dollars you keep talking about?

And you don't know if he'll be donating it or funding a foundation, and frankly, since he's not in office anymore, it's none of our business.

[Cha]

39. The answer was in there. you had to read it.

[ZX86]

47. Do they have names?

How do they make their money? If they have $400,000.00 to spend on a speech what else do they spend their money on?

[Hekate]

85. Research. Go to it.

[lapucelle]

67. The type of person who knows

that the $400,000 will generate the type of participation, news interest, press coverage, and good publicity that is cheap at that price.

What kind of person would pay a grown man in shorts $30,000,000 a year to run around bouncing a ball and throwing it at a hoop?

Ask LeBron James.

[Cha]

115. Zing, lapucelle!

Link to tweet

[ZX86]

133. Participation in what? News interest, press coverage, and good publicity to what end?

Funny how you don't see the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders throwing lavish parties with $400,000.00 guest speakers. I guess they're doing it wrong. They use their money to actually help people.

[lapucelle]

135. Actually, the Red Cross is cutting a check to Trump,

and Doctors Without Borders is on the "provides speakers" (rather than the "hires speakers&quot side of the equation.

As for your question: participation and news interest in and press coverage and good publicity for the Innovations in Health Care conference that they're sponsoring.

To what end?

We are bringing together an innovative group of executive management from public and private companies for an in-depth discussion of the trends and developments affecting biotechnology, specialty pharmaceuticals, medical technology, health care facilities and services, and life sciences tools and diagnostics.

http://www.businessinsider.com/red-cross-to-hold-a-gala-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-resort-2017-1

http://www.meetmax.com/sched/event_37633/~public/conference_home.html?event_id=37633

[ZX86]

136. WTF is that?

Apparently all the innovative group of executive management from public and private companies are non-existent...at least according to your link. Not one company public or private is listed. They also have no schedule or agenda. Looks like another corporate event where more liquor consuming and spouse cheating goes on than actual work.

The Red Cross is holding a charity event to raise money. Not give it away to millionaires.

Doctors Without Borders isn't giving away money to millionaires either.

Nicely worded press release though. Figures that if you more info you can contact a sales rep at corporateaccess@blah-blah-blah.

[lapucelle]

137. Here's a link to last year's conference program

and participants. Cantor Fitzgerald is probably waiting to hear from all invited participants before they finalize a program.
http://www.cantorconferences.com/health-overview

If your contention is that the purpose of the conference is to give money away to millionaires, I think you're mistaken.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028992415#post10

Moreover, The Red Cross could have and should have chosen a different venue. I find what the Red Cross is doing much more problematic than a former president speaking at a conference. The Red Cross will be enriching the president while raising funds to address a refugee crisis that Trump has helped prolong.

See, he told you he would create jobs.

[ZX86]

70. If I had an extra $400,000,.00 to spend

and I was involved in "healthcare" I'd open a free clinic for the homeless. That's what I would do.

[LexVegas]

126. Link? nt

[peggysue2]

34. What is all the fuss about?

We're talking about the former President of the freaking United States. He came in as a rock star; he left as a rock star. He has 8 years of experience and expertise of world events. Of course, people are going to pay him a huge amount of money to appear and speak. What of it? We expect him to work for free or a piddling amount to satisfy the purity muffins??

Hello?? For better or worse, we live in a capitalistic society. Whatever the market will bear is the price paid.

I've had my complaints with Barack Obama over the years. But making top dollar as a former President of these United States is not one of them.

He's an excellent speaker. He has something to say that people obviously want to hear. No, the corner grocer would not command that amount of money, anymore than I would. Get over it, And put the purity yardsticks in a closet.

I love Liz Warren but she's off the mark on this one.

[zentrum]

44. I'm concerned about

....perception of the Democratic party because of this. It can't just be about Obama in these perilous times.

We are fighting a coup that threatens every one of our institutions. Everything a Dem does at this point matters.

For the vast middle, this blurs the distinction between us and the Repugs. It shouldn't, but it's the way the low information voter works, IMO.

I hope he takes the entire fee and donates it to a hugely important cause in a big public way.

He and Michelle already are multi-millionaires already, so without a donation, I don't get the point.

[BainsBane]

48. the low-information voter isn't voting for Obama

Nor is anyone else. Some people will always believe black men should not have access to wealth that they see as rightfully belonging to white men. They can damn well get over it. The problem is theirs. The Obama's don't need to be hostage to idiocy or petty resentment. The low-information voters and non-voters complaining about this don't own them.

[zentrum]

76. Good Lord. Are you

....suggesting that my view is somehow racist? You don't know anything about who I am or who I'm married to or where I come from.

Nothing to do with him being a black man. Everything to do with him being the face of the Democratic party. Doesn't matter if he's running for office. The rest of the Party is.

Of course the vast middle is low information and yet still votes. They are low information because they watch the MSM and respond to headlines and optics. It the Dems are ready to write off the vast middle, who do not spend their evening posting on political blogs, then we'll never win again.

Why you would see their perception of him accepting almost half a million for a Wall Street speech as them being petty and vindictive is quite a stretch.

They want to see politicians who they feel they can trust and who are very distinct from Repugs.

But never mind.

[BainsBane]

80. I am not suggesting that you are racist

I am suggesting that this outrage is selective. We have seen it against Obama and Clinton, while far greater wealth of others is justified. How do you explain that? Why do the same people with such contempt for Obama and Clinton earning money from speeches continually herald FDR and JFK, both born into extreme wealth, as heroes? Why do people insist inherited wealth is okay, but earning money isn't? Why do they insist Kerry's billions aren't a problem because they come through marriage, while Clinton and Obama's earning money are not?

Why do they ignore or excuse politicians who enrich themselves to the tune of tens of millions off campaign donations, all while being enraged about Obama speaking at a conference sponsored by Cantor Fitzgerald?

Frankly, it doesn't matter what you want to see. You nor the rest of Twitter owns Obama. He is not a politician anymore but a private citizen, free to earn money as he sees fit. What makes any of you think you have any right to control what Obama does or doesn't do? Your influence over politicians is through your vote. Obama isn't asking for your votes. That stage of his life is finished.

I know hating Wall Street while offering no critique of capitalism is all the fashion. I understand the goal is to return to the great days of the party, when Wall Street financed half of the campaign of FDR, a man born into extreme wealth. I know that certain politicians, including Trump, have been adept at exploiting popular rage at Wall Street for their own benefit. I understand that rage directed at specific individuals and one li sector of the economy--to the exclusion of others like guns and defense-- has replaced efforts to promote systemic reform that could actually address problems in the financial sector or the influence of money in politics.

I, however, expect more. I expect citizens to inform themselves rather than buy into self serving political rhetoric, rather than focusing their anger toward certain individuals they believe have no right to have money while celebrating as heroes those with far more. I expect a focus on the system that generates inequality, not resentment toward a president for earning more money that some think he has a right to. Though, truthfully, I know that won't happen because people derive too much satisfaction from rage, and some politicians are very good at exploiting that for their own benefit.

There is no principle by which people have a right to control the actions of a former president, who will never again seek selected office. There is no principle that justifies rage toward Obama while excusing far greater wealth held by others. This isn't about economic justice. It's not an effort to promote equality. There is not even an articulation of such a goal. I see that at least part of it is about patrolling the boundaries of who is allowed access to wealth, and I do believe that race and gender play a role in that, though not necessarily consciously. I have quite recently seen policies that lead to greater inequality and poverty justified under the guise of progressivism. As a result, I no longer believe that their goal is economic justice for all, but rather increased wealth and the restoration of privilege for some at the expense of many. In light of all that, I have trouble seeing this outrage over Obama's speech as principled.

[BainsBane]

81. And in terms of your particular post

I was responding to your point about low-information voters, not you personally.

[DefenseLawyer]

51. I have no beef with the former President speaking to Wall Street for a lot of money

I would like to think that if I was ever an ex-President (which I will of course never be) that I'd be the last person those Wall Street fucks would ever want to hear from ever again. But alas, such is not the case with the real ex-President.

[MicaelS]

56. Goddamn it.

This is just more circular firing squad bullshit. All this shit that he put up with he deserves to make some money.

[peggysue2]

69. Exactly!

We should spend more time propping up our Democratic All Stars than nitpicking over speaking fees. As I said up thread, Barack Obama came in as a rock star and he left as a rock star despite all the Republican complaints and sabotage.

He made $400,000? Good one on him. May he live long and thrive.

[Cha]

87. Thank you, Micael..

Link to tweet

[herding cats]

65. My feelings are, good for him!

Screw the biased "perception", and screw the haters. He's smart, talented and has been victimized enough by the haters over the past eight years. Fuck them.

Go President Obama! Live your life well and fully.

This faux "controversy" sucks.

[Docreed2003]

78. I'm seriously confused by this "faux controversy"...

As a former president, you carry an experience and a certain gravitas that allows you to accept very well paid speaking engagements from audiences who want to hear that experience and opinion. Every single modern former president has done the same.

I'm really bothered by some of the pearl clutchers who gasp in horror that our most recent former president would have the audacity, pun strongly intended, to accept a significant amount of money for a speaking engagement. President Obama was an incredibly successful president who also happens to be a well respected author. For anyone who is upset over this, ask yourself this: Would you turn it down? Honestly and truly? This crap is just further attacks on our former president and attempts to divide and disrupt the Dems, and it's pretty freaking obvious.

[Cha]

91. Thank you, Docreed! Trevor Noah's take on it..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Cha]

89. BS is wrong and Insulting, too..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[BainsBane]

90. Those who live in glass houses

Ought not throw stones.

[Cha]

92. But they do.. biggest ones of all. Trevor Noah's take on all this..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[BainsBane]

94. Lol

[Cha]

97. "**** you!"..

[JCanete]

93. toughest reforms on wall street since FDR amidst the second crisis almost as big as the one

FDR was dealing with, and the reforms this time around weren't so tough. I don't put that all on Obama, but nobody was calling for bankers heads, including him, save for a few voices in the wilderness. Nobody went to jail. Crimes WERE committed. This wasn't a whole lot more than clean-up and stabilization. I'm sure it was hard to get even that done, given how dysfunctional our Government is...but money continues to be a problem in government. A Huge fucking problem, and when we cannot distance ourselves from the appearance of possible quid pro quo with any credibility, it makes it harder for us to hang the GOP with it.

Is Obama a good guy? Did he do amazingly difficult work? Did he come in and stabilize what the GOP had broken...again? Yes, and none of that makes this not harmful to our cause. I don't know who Peter Daou is, but me thinks after this tweet that

He's.
toxic.
for.
Dems.

[BainsBane]

96. Yeah, not enough hated for the party there

Disagreeing while respecting the other Democrat, toxic. Now someone who pocketed $12.9 million slamming a former president for earning $400k, that's cool because what the Democratic Party really needs is hypocrisy.

[JCanete]

99. pocketed 12.9 million? Accusation or fact?

and yeah, that's all that was was just disagreeing. Okay...

[BainsBane]

100. An estimate

give or take a couple of million.

[JCanete]

101. an estimate of what?

[BainsBane]

102. Follow the money yourself

Old Towne Media. Look it up and see what you find.

[JCanete]

107. well shucks...that is a very loose accusation, and I'm not even sure what the accusation is.

So Sanders funneled millions of dollars to some random people ? Usually the funneling is supposed to work the other way around, unless you owe some powerful people for your gambling debts and your cocaine habit. Where is the quid pro quo? Where is evidence that Sanders and his family have anything that looks like it might have been in trade for that kind of money?

And here's the thing that is particularly fishy...has anybody actually asked Sanders directly? That's usually what people do when there's an actual scandal, or a story, particularly when a person has the kind of profile that Sanders has,(not to mention when there is access) and when that person is a socialist. American media actually hates socialists. That kind of goes with the paycheck. Sure, they use them when they can bloody the less corporate establishment party...then suddenly they love them....but they have absolutely no investment in not breaking a huge story that makes a socialist look like a criminal and a hypocrite. Yet nobody is touching this? Nobody is badgering him to answer these questions?

Hell, he could be dirty as shit. I don't know him personally, but for now, I'm calling bullshit.

[BainsBane]

112. No, not to random people

If you want to discuss this via PM tomorrow, I'm happy to do so.

There is no allegation of illegality, if that is what you mean by dirty.

[JCanete]

113. I'm genuinely interested, and if off-board is better for this material that's fine. I'm moving so

won't have an opportunity in the next couple days, but we can back-and-forth in correspondence.

[melman]

108. Just totally made up nonsense

You'll notice when asked to back it up all you got was a 'look it up yourself'. Why do you suppose that would be? Obviously because it's total bullshit. I mean, if it weren't don't you think they'd be eager to show the evidence?

[mcar]

127. No surprise there

[Cha]

128. Yeah, just get the nastiest, wrong headed insult he

can out there.. Many on Twitter are not impressed.

[mcar]

129. I've noticed he's getting push back on Twitter

[Cha]

130. You, too.. Good!

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

95. K&R

[Cha]

98. Trevor Noah's take on this, mcar..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Mahalo!

[OnDoutside]

106. Excellent ! Imagine if he refused the money, you'd still get

people criticising him for giving freebies to Wall Street, or for even speaking to them at all.

Zealots don't do rational thought.

[Cha]

110. Pres Obama is a young man with ambitious plans to build an innovative 21st C library

Link to tweet

Trevor's got the right idea.. the only way to deal with that..

Mahalo, Doutside

[OnDoutside]

114. Absolutely. He's being paid as much for being a voice

of sanity, in a sea of Trumpian bluster...

Hahaha, that was funny...I typed Trumpian and my predictive text gave me a choice of "bluster" or "ignoramus" !!!

Anyway I'm sure he'll go on to earn many deserved millions, after the way he was treated.

[Cha]

116. Great point! "..he's being paid as much for being

a voice of sanity in a sea of trump.. "

Do they not think what President Obama has to say is worth $400,000?

That is funny and makes perfect sense.. about the predictive words available after "trump"..

[lapucelle]

121. Isn't Jonathan Alter one of the pundits

who cashed in early on Obama's name with lucrative book deals?

If Alter thinks that speaking fees have the potential to subtly corrupt or skew, why does does he accept them? How can we know this journalist's message isn't being shaped by the organizations paying him?

http://www.greatertalent.com/jonathanalter/

[Cha]

124. It rings a bell now that you mention it.. I trust

President Obama over all these people clutching pearls.. he's earned my trust and never lost it over the years.

Mahalo, lapucelle

[JCanete]

117. hahah, that IS funny, and certainly hasn't been lost on me. Still uncomfortable with it, and I think

it undermines efforts to paint the GOP as the party on the take, even if that isn't what this is, but I'm also uncomfortable to some degree with the nation suddenly drawing a different line in the sand at this point and time. It would have been nice had Obama drawn that line, but this certainly doesn't take him down a notch from past Presidents.

[applegrove]

105. Trevor Noah kept saying F**** Off! to the camera on this topic. What we

have the first black president and he is going to be the first president to not profit from it?

[Cha]

131. BTW, President Obama...

Link to tweet