If it's wrong for Obama to earn speaking fees

[BainsBane]

Does that mean it's also wrong for current representatives to profit from elected office?

[jberryhill]

1. Is there a reason for keeping this nontroversy alive?

You can decide whatever is right or wrong on your own. If you are expecting logical consistency out of anyone else's moral judgments, you are going to be disappointed.

[bettyellen]

3. If I understand it, reporters are doing the rounds asking liberals to condemn Obama for this...

And some are actually falling for it. That's disturbing to me.

[pnwmom]

8. The NYTimes published an editorial from the board criticizing DT about this today.

As long as major figures and the MSM keep going after Obama about this, Dems will keep defending him.

[JustAnotherGen]

44. +1000

[jrthin]

65. I find this question and "notroversy" so offensive.

In fact, this is the first thread that I've opened about this topic. Obama won't say it, but I'd like to tell those who are criticizing him on this matter to f#ck-off.

[BeyondGeography]

2. Another straw man thread...If you're going to keep this issue alive

you should at least get the issue right.

[BainsBane]

6. Then enlighten me, please

Somehow I'm not surprised that the issue has been redefined to apply to Obama while excluding far greater wealth held by others.

[BeyondGeography]

11. Our leaders don't do the Democratic Party any favors when they take Wall St. money

At least some of us feel that way. Obama made a $400K speaking fee from A&E last week for a 90-minute interview with Doris Kearns Goodwin. Did you see any complaints about that?

[BainsBane]

19. Wall Street money

not extreme wealth, not profiting from office, but taking money from Wall Street because some have decided that financial businesses operating in NY are the problem--not inequality, not capitalism, not profiting from public office or the exploitation of labor, but a single street in Manhattan. No, I do not share the view that Wall Street is worse than, for example, industries that profit from killing--like guns and defense (eg. Lockheed Martin)l. I happen to think killing and genocide are worse than usury, which is why I don't share the very selective condemnation toward businesses on one street in Manhattan.


That some politicians, like Trump, have ginned up opposition to Wall Street to serve their own purposes does not excuse citizens blindly following along. And if they insist on doing so, that is their problem. It is certainly not principled. In fact, we are increasing seeing it used to justify inequality.

Without a critique of capital and a commitment to equality, the rhetoric about Wall Street doesn't rise beyond sloganeering.

[betsuni]

32. +1

[BeyondGeography]

46. Does the 2008 financial crisis and its resulting economic impact need to be re-explained?

Last edited Tue May 2, 2017, 06:06 AM - Edit history (2)

Do gun manufacturers have the potential not only to wreck the global economy but to compel governments to prop them up when they fail?

At least you say in so many words that Obama taking money from a gun-maker would be unacceptable to you. The logic deployed by many here is that Obama is retired and free to work for whomever. So, contrary what you imply in the OP, there are limits, correct? Well maybe you can excuse some of us for thinking that Wall Street falls into the stay-away category.

Strict, ongoing regulation of the financial sector is the main thing standing between us and another crisis, not to mention all the rip-offs that can happen along the way. When politicians take the first available paycheck from Wall St. after leaving office, people can be excused for being cynical about whether these same politicians were always looking out for them. This is the very cynicism that undermines our party's ability to separate itself from Republicans in elections all over the country.

We just lost to the most dishonest candidate in history, and he was still rated higher on trustworthiness and fighting corruption in the last ABC/Wapo tracking poll before the election than our candidate. If you're honest with yourself about the full explanation on how that happened, the flack that Obama is taking for this particular payday should be easy for you to grasp.

[JI7]

47. how that happened ? it had to do with immigration and terrorism. not the financial crisis which hurt

those who voted for clinton just as much and most likely even more than Trump supporters.

the fact that trump supporters continue to support him should tell you enough about what these people had a problem with.

[BainsBane]

50. If the concern is elections

Last edited Tue May 2, 2017, 08:31 AM - Edit history (1)

Why ratchet up opposition?

No, I do not agree you have the right to control how a private citizen earns his income.

I find murder and genocide worse than usury , and I have long felt repulsed by efforts to justify them. Murder Inc wields enormous power over our political system. Guns alone constitute the single most powerful lobby in the country. Their corporate lobby spend billions to subvert democracy, and they are invariably successful in ensuring their profits come before human life. Murder Inc. is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths at home every year and more abroad. Rampant military spending ensures obscene profits for those corporations at the expense of healthcare and programs that could otherwise address poverty. That government spending reflects the nations' priorities, as do citizen efforts to justify those profits.

The most dishonest candidate won because of a whitelash, as studies on the fall election make clear. So yes, the outrage against the first black president earning much smaller amounts of money than favored white politicians fits with that tendency, as does a double standard regarding Wall Street vs. profiting from genocide of urban populations of color and war in the Global South. I will not be acquiescing to that injustice because some see the double standards as easier or personally beneficial.

[BeyondGeography]

52. So if Obama earned $400k for a speech to the NRA you would be fine with that, too?

Nobody is talking about control; it's about judgment.

[BainsBane]

53. I would be sickened by it

But he would not do that. A man who considers the inability to pass gun control his single greatest failing would not speak before the corporate gun lobby.

[BeyondGeography]

57. So it's wrong for Obama to earn "some" speaking fees

We agree.

[BainsBane]

60. Your point was not that speaking fees or great wealth was wrong.

Or that profiting from public office was wrong. You insisted that any association with Wall Street was the problem, and nothing else. I pointed out I do not share that view. Nor do I want a party focused on rhetoric and slogans over principle and equality.

Since Obama has not spoken to the NRA, Lockheed Martin, or any other corporation or lobby whose profits are routinely defended by those targeting Wall Street, your effort to distract from your own double standards to construct a hypothetical is far from effective. You've been been very clear about your concerns. You do not want a focus on capital, inequality, or profiting from the public trust. You instead want to enforce a narrow focus on Wall Street. I do not be cooperating with that distraction.

[KTM]

70. Nicely done.

We just saw a massive election loss in which the Democratic party was almost 50/50 divided, with one side - almost half the party - making opposition to Wall Street/Billionaires/Corporations THE primary plank in their platform. They rode a tide of public opinion to form an entirely unexpected wave of voices asking for change. Young voters were energized, and disaffected voters felt like someone finally spoke to their issues. With our party seeing massive losses at every political level, it is obvious we need to hear those voices, and we need to get as many people as possible engaged and active.

In the face of all that, to me personally, seeing one of my political heroes ignore that rising voice for change hurts. Im betting that had it not been pre-scheduled, he would not have made the same decision in the current climate. Am I personally angry at Obama ? No - but I am disappointed in him. I think he and his family deserve all the success in the world, and wish nothing but joy and happiness to all of them, in whatever form that takes. I just wish he had handled this in a way which was more respectful to the huge numbers of Democrats and left-leaning Independents who felt that their voices were shut down in the last year.

So for BB, she might feel the same way about a speech before the NRA, for her own reasons, and I get that. Im sure, if she heard he was planning on speaking to them, she would strongly advise against it or be disappointed with him after the fact. For others it may be other issues. None of us are saying "the black man shouldn't get paid !" This isnt about his right to earn money, its about the personal hurt and the long-term harm that we feel such action may cause to our party and ultimately to our country.

Im glad you were able to draw this conversation into a place where maybe some people who disagree over the specifics of this issue might understand that were the forum for his speech different, they might be feeling the exact same way we are now.

[WellDarn]

62. As I read this string

and in particular your posts on this string, I thought "Wow, a DU member who has, in the past, openly used Sanders' and Warren's criticism of Obama's expected Wall Street speaking engagement to perpetuate the deceitful, divisive, and IMHO unconscionable "left so white male" meme has actually hit on the important point and (despite being urged to return to the "Trash the Left" angle from not unexpected sources) has stuck with it. When you are in a position with actual governmental authority, who, or which group, you speak to matters if for no other reason because, unless you just blast them in your speech, it looks a whole lot like a governmental endorsement and/or like an indication of a coming governmental endorsement.

for that.

I have to tell you though, this one post (#53), well the title of it anyway, really bothers me. It seems to suggest that we would be justified criticizing a former president, a man who has laid down the reins of governmental power, for whom he spoke to, not what he said . . . that is, if we "really" didn't like who he was speaking to. That was what I consider the major problem with Warren's and Sanders' comments. Barack Obama is not a governmental official. He isn't trying to become one. He is speaking right out in the open where his words can be judged for their content. This idea that where he speaks, be it Wall Street of the NRA convention, matters more than what he says is an insult to the man on so many levels that I just had to say something.

In any event, thank you for the brief respite.

[BainsBane]

64. I don't believe I have ever used the term left to describe

The group you refer to. To pretend race and gender play no role in forming coalitions and political interests, however, is naive.

I do not trash the left. What I have done is object to the insistence that a particular faction holds claim to that designation, particularly when I see so many views that do not reflect what I see as leftist principles.

[WellDarn]

67. Once again

I cannot agree more with at least part of your post.

What I have been seeing elsewhere (as opposed to in what I again note was, your remarkably astute OP) however, are far more than simply objections to some people's claims to the title "leftist."

What I see are opportunistic accusations/insinuations of misogyny against a one particular person (Sanders) and members of our party leadership (for example, Perez - for a time- and Ellison) who have been among the our party's strongest advocates for choice and gender equality for standing behind a Democratic candidate who was, AS HAVE BEEN MANY OF OUR PARTY, weak on choice while being strong on other core Democratic issues AND who stood a chance of establishing a blue toehold in deep red Nebraska. What I see are opportunistic accusations/insinuations of racism (reminiscent of similar accusations during the primaries) against two particular people (Senators Sanders and Warren) (aside: who have also been among our strongest white advocates on the subject of racial equality, including in three areas of great personal importance to me: (1) their unwavering condemnation of individual racist police shootings -- and in particular the shooting of Michael Brown in which many of our fellow Democrats stood behind the police version of what happened; (2) a 100% racist war on drugs; and, (3) our 100% racist use of the death penalty)) after criticism of Obama which, as unjustified it was (and I remind you I agree that it was totally unjustified), had NOTHING to do with race.

Those kind of comments do more than say, for example, "Bernie (or "Prominent Leftist B&quot isn't the only liberal out there," they are saying "Bernie (or "Prominent Leftist B&quot is a traitor to the most basic tenants we all share as liberals."

I am a black man. I adhere to the belief that socialism is a indispensable component of black liberation which I learned from my father who in turn learned it from Bobby Seale and Eldridge Cleaver. I have no problem when other people of color disagree with me on that point, however, that belief does not make me a traitor to my race, or to liberalism, and I find the suggestion that economic justice and social justice are in any way incompatible simply offensive.

[BainsBane]

22. Does that mean you think it's acceptable for politicians to profit

from their public position while currently serving? When Trump payed his own companies from his campaign, that was fine with you?

[George II]

27. What is your perception of "Wall Street money"? That's a term that had been bandied about...

...with no true definition.

Sadly, if someone is unhappy with something a Democrat has done, it's blamed on being "beholden to Wall Street", or "Wall Street money", etc.

It's the catch all expressing dissatisfaction.

[betsuni]

31. I too would like to know this. What happens when one takes money from The Street of Wall?

It must be a dark secret because it's never explained what the money does to a person that is so terrible and why they are "beholden" forever and ever. Sounds like something from a fairy tale.

[Foamfollower]

49. You talked about a straw man you turned around and threw out a MAJOR strawman!!!!!

"Wall Street Money" is the biggest bullshit strawman argument going!!!!!!!!!

[pnwmom]

10. The MSM is keeping this alive. Should Democrats just ignore the attacks?

From today's NYTimes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/opinion/the-cost-of-barack-obamas-speech.html?ref=opinion

[jberryhill]

17. Is Obama running for something?

I think he's pretty much entitled to do whatever the fuck he wants to do.

Does he hold any sort of public office, or is he seeking one?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

35. The web brigades of St. Petersburg, Russia, are keeping this alive, too. . . nt

[pnwmom]

37. True! They know that their propaganda works. n/t

[Cha]

4. Oh you mean like book tours while they're

snipping at President Obama?

[BainsBane]

7. No, I don't mean book tours.

[cilla4progress]

5. How do we know what

His plan is for the money?

I can't think of a better group to soak for $$$$ than wall st.

[Nanjeanne]

9. Oh good. Another same old thread because this hasn't been beaten to a pulp on the

Zillion other threads.

[BainsBane]

12. Yet here you are

contributing to it, again.

[Nanjeanne]

13. Yes. I said oh goody. I love your tunnel vision and want to applaud you for it. 👍

[Eko]

43. Your lack of

understanding your own contributions to this is quite appalling as well as your inability to distinguish between good and bad. One can hope that someday you can get over this guilt by association thing and actually have an honest conversation about the things that are real bad things that society has to confront to move on. I wont hold my breath though.

[Nanjeanne]

66. Thanks Lucy for the 25 cent analysis. You are endlessly entertaining.

[safeinOhio]

14. When anyone brings it up.

Ask them if Reagan speech in Japan, right after leaving office for a million bucks, set a president?

[Warpy]

15. Oh, another useless thread popping up like a poison mushroom.

about a subject that's been flogged to death for several days.

Let it go. You'll feel better.

[Sculpin Beauregard]

16. Exactly right!

[BainsBane]

23. Perhaps you can pretend I'm on national television condemning Obama

rather than posting my thoughts, that you have no obligation to read, on a message board?

[Warpy]

29. I'm sure you do.

Buhbye.

[WhiteTara]

18. That was what I asked when I called the Senator's office

today. His assistant insisted it was because he got all that money for just one speech. When I was assured the Senator was receiving money for his book ... let's just say our conversation didn't end well. But since I was calling him as Outreach Director for Democrats, he had to continue the conversation with me.

[BainsBane]

20. I think I'll call myself

but I won't be talking about the book.

[WhiteTara]

21. I did tell him I am a Democrat and that was why

I was calling. I think I'll call him more often. I do have my little post it note of phone numbers and I do use them.

[redstateblues]

28. Boom!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

34. Your concern is noted. Both topics should be left to rest and not continually raised like that.

[BainsBane]

54. I am not on national television

Raising them. I am posting a thread read by a handful of people. Your concerns are misdirected.

[musette_sf]

41. Yep - It seems to me, too, that criticizing the most popular Democrat,

President Obama, is ok.

But criticizing the Jr. Senator from Vermont, who is divisive and polarizing

and not a Democrat

is not.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

33. Give it a rest, folks. Pay no attention to the OP scratching at the divide & disturbing fecal matter

[Cha]

48. You're dividing right now.. with your "fecal matter" accusation.

There has been discussion about current events but those who can't handle facts coming out want to shut it down.

BS is the divider by is "distasteful" remarks about President Obama.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

51. Nah. There's discussion and then there's interminable repetitive kvetching that is divisive.

I've posted that same sentiment (that enough is enough) in both Obama-centric and Sanders-centric threads.

[betsuni]

55. Nah. Wrong.

Current events are events that are current. They just happened. Not interminable, not repetitive, not divisive.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

58. I clearly was NOT referring to the current event. Nice try at misdirection but it fails.

I was clearly referring to the discussion. It is unending and repetitive, at which point it ceases usefulness and becomes divisive.

The proponents who keep raising these issue and "events" (from either side of the divides, and with regard to either of the figures) are not making new points, not offering new insights.

Most importantly, [font size = "+2"]they are not suggesting ways to bridge the internal divisions.[/font]

[betsuni]

59. Nope. Obama hasn't even given the speech. Current events yet to come. Fail.

"'They're not suggesting ways to bridge the internal divisions"

[Bernardo de La Paz]

61. Pour salt in the wound if you can't help yourself. Until then give it a rest. The members have work.

When he gives the speech, raise it again if you like, for a bit. But I doubt if there will be any new insights or information provided by either faction here.

The continual kvetching about it does not make the party work.

It's fine to have disagreements, but [font size = "+1"]at the end of the day you have to work with your opponents within the party or work against them outside it in another party.[/font] The same applies to your opponents. Now is not too soon to begin to work together.

[betsuni]

63. Pour salt in what wound?

This is 2017. The wounds are fresh as they just happened. Don't tell me to give it a rest, don't tell me I'm "kvetching." What "factions"? We are all Democrats here, or should be at Democratic Underground. No, I don't have to work with opponents who hate Democrats.

[BainsBane]

56. I decided I would not be intimidated into silence

Because I believe it important to think about contradictions pointing to double standards, particularly when they are presented as key values for the party.

[Mountain Mule]

36. *sigh*

Let it go already. This is foolishness.

[betsuni]

38. K&R

[musette_sf]

40. K to the R

[MrScorpio]

42. Nope, not wrong at all.

[Alice11111]

45. No

[YoungDemCA]

68. I personally expect more of Democrats than of Republicans.

Certainly more so than what I expect of Donald Trump.

[Demsrule86]

71. Me too but an ex-president giving a speech is meaningless to me...and just seems like spite...

some never liked him...I well remember the terrible anti-Obama posts of 10...not saying you..and some are out bigots. (not one this site ). No matter what the motive, one only helps Trump and the GOP by joining their chorus of fake outrage.

[GeorgeGist]

69. Yes.