Clinton breaks the mold by cashing in before winning the Oval Office

[snagglepuss]

Last edited Wed Jan 27, 2016, 10:55 PM - Edit history (1)

snip


The New York Times reported last year that the Clintons earned $139 million from 2007 to 2014.


snip


Defenders are free to mention Republican ex-presidents who charged hefty speaking fees. George W. Bush reportedly fetches $100,000 to $175,000 for a speech. Clinton, however, breaks the mold by cashing in before winning the Oval Office. Check writers are looking ahead, not behind, with a reasonable expectation of friendly treatment.


snip


"You don't think they expect anything in return?" "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd asked Clinton on Sunday. "Absolutely not," Clinton answered. She said she took on the big banks as a U.S. senator.

A 2013 Politico story paints a different picture. After questioning attendees of a Clinton Goldman Sachs speech, Politico reported, "What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn't going to improve the economy -- it needs to stop."






http://townhall.com/columnists/debrajsaunders/2016/01/26/greed-is-clintons-achilles-heel-n2109871/page/full







Yes I know this is a conservative rag however who can argue with the fact that unlike republicans who cashed in after leaving office "Clinton breaks the mold by cashing in before winning the Oval Office".

[thereismore]

1. It will be ironic when her premature cashing in will prevent her from getting in the White House. nt

[appal_jack]

3. Let's hope. k&r, nt

[snagglepuss]

4. For pols who cash in like this

there really ought to be a 3 yr waiting period before the seek re-election.

[FreakinDJ]

2. BAM there it is

[libdem4life]

5. "Beating up the finance industry isn't going to improve the economy -- it needs to stop."

That's the "cut it out" she mentioned. Now it makes more sense. LOL

[CharlotteVale]

6. They will expect a high rate of interest on their investment.

[Fumesucker]

7. Anything else would be a betrayal of their fiduciary responsibility to increase shareholder value

No legitimate Vampire Squid would ever do such a thing as betray fiduciary responsibility.

[Major Nikon]

8. Results...

On Wed Jan 27, 2016, 07:30 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

"Clinton, however, breaks the mold by cashing in before winning the Oval Office"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511071431

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Now we have articles from Townhall on DU. Townhall?! The "Conservative news, politics, and Commentary" Townhall. Who's writes include the glorious Phyllis Schlafly and Cal Thomas. Please don't let this be considered within DU Community Standards.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jan 27, 2016, 07:39 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Using this extreme right wing rag should be offensive to anyone on DU. This is a online publication which pushes the viewpoints of Neal Boortz, Ann Coulter, Dinesh D'Souza, etc.

It is pretty pathetic if some feel it necessary to use these types of journals to make their arguments
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: If people want to read RW sources they should do so on another site...don't bring that trash here.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The OP discloses this as a RW source. Perhaps the alerter doesn't realize most people on DU are smart enough to take that into consideration.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[Metric System]

10. Wow, Townhall has been legitimized on DU.

[one_voice]

13. Here's an article about Bernie from the same..

source.


http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2015/05/27/bernie-sanders-foul-socialist-odor-n2004189/page/full

How's that bern feel?

Source still legit?

[still_one]

16. It really saddens me that DU has come to this. They let this one stand also

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251992133

and that site is an extreme anti-abortion right wing site.

[MeNMyVolt]

19. Why does David Allen allow this shit.

It has to kill him that his wonderful idea has turn into this.

[Fumesucker]

56. Because if he got rid of the Bernibros this place would be a ghost town

It's all about the Benjamins.

[Bobbie Jo]

50. Stick a fork in this place.

Done.

[still_one]

51. sorry, but your comment made me smile

[Bobbie Jo]

52. To think

I used to come here to get away from the RW garbage. Now, they're dragging it up in here to set up some kind of twisted gotcha moment.

This place used to have standards.

[still_one]

53. it sure seems that way

[Major Nikon]

18. And here's the same article from a different source

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Greed-Hillary-Clinton-s-Achilles-heel-6783244.php

How's that bern feel?

[MeNMyVolt]

22. Fine, use that and don't link to fuckin Townhall.

[one_voice]

23. The point was the source not the article...

but you missed that. Woooosssshhhhhh right over that berned up head....

[Major Nikon]

25. No, just not a big fan of ad hominem

YMMV

[one_voice]

26. I'm not a fan of giving of giving right wing sites...

clicks/props/views etc. Their entire purpose is to slime, distort, and lie about Democrats/Liberals.

To each their own I guess. YMMV

[Major Nikon]

36. And yet you did anyway

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1072278

[one_voice]

37. Right.

context matters.

[Major Nikon]

39. This is the context I'm referring...

I'm not a fan of giving of giving right wing sites...

clicks/props/views etc.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511071431#post26

Here's an article about Bernie from the same..

source.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511071431#post13

[one_voice]

40. I knew what you were referring to..

again you missed the point.

You think Townhall is ok to be used on a Democratic site. I don't.--my entire issue from the start was THE SOURCE. I used that link to make a point-- I don't think it would have been viewed as cheerfully by the same people that are 'okaying' the source. CONTEXT.

I'm done now. Don't think I can break it down any further, nor do I care to.

[Major Nikon]

44. Obviously you do think Townhall is OK to be used on a Democratic site

Because you did so.

Whatever point you were trying to make was quite redundant as the OP clearly listed the bias of "THE SOURCE", BTW. Maybe you missed that.

[snagglepuss]

60. It's been such a pleasure to read your rebuttals made with such aplomb.

I didn't anticipate such mindless hostility as the article simply stated the facts and was in no way a hatchet job.

[mcar]

31. Please let us know the alert results on this one

Of course it must be left, yes? And yet there is another OP getting all kinds of flack because it sources a Fox poll.

[senz]

41. The difference is: this one's true.

Of course she has cashed in. She was cashing in while still working as SOS.

[MeNMyVolt]

15. I'm the one who alerted on this, and it's BS that it's left standing.

I hope Skinner, Earl, and Eliad are happy with what their board has become.

[Major Nikon]

20. Would you have been less sad if it came from here:

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Greed-Hillary-Clinton-s-Achilles-heel-6783244.php

[MeNMyVolt]

24. I aint sad pal, I'm mad. See my post above.

Oh, and

"Debra J. Saunders (born 1954) is a conservative columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle.".

[Major Nikon]

28. So which is worse...

Posting an article from a conservative author on a RW source while fully disclosing the bias, or posting the same article from a mainstream source and not disclosing anything.

Most of the vitriol seems to suggest the latter is preferred.

[NYC Liberal]

29. Both are shitty. Right-wing crap shouldn't be posted at DU,

unless it's to mock it.

[Major Nikon]

32. Is this acceptable?

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/DEBRA-J-SAUNDERS-Straight-and-Narrow-3319044.php

Note that it was written in 1996, which is about 7 years before HRC evolved on the subject.

[NYC Liberal]

33. I repeat: right-wing crap shouldn't be posted on DU.

THIS article is a right-wing attack from a right-wing website.

Your article is a different article, from a different website, on a different subject. Do you think your article is right-wing? I don't.

[Major Nikon]

34. So what makes it right wing?

First it was the source, then it was the author, and now it's the content. The obvious problem with the latest goalpost movement is Bernie is saying pretty much the same thing.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clintons-speaking-fees/story?id=36351691

[senz]

42. Anything critical of Hillary is "right wing."

That is the definition of "right wing."

[Major Nikon]

45. That certainly explains the perpetual string of alerts concerning HRC

But hardly explains why the vast majority of them fail.

[loyalsister]

9. The relevant question isn't whether they are expecting something

It's whether she is willing to turn on them.

If you can't take their money, "eat their food, drink their booze, and vote against them" you don't belong in this business.

[still_one]

11. Using a publication that pushes the views of Neal Boortz, Ann Coulter, Dinesh D'Souza, etc.

is pathetic.

Saw the same type of logic being propagated after PP endorsed Hillary. Some also thought there was no problem putting links to extreme right wing anti-abortion sites to justify their arguments against PP for the endorsement.

[cali]

12. Town hall? Fuck wingnut sites being used to bolster an argument or

make a point.

[still_one]

17. exactly. That does help your candidate. The OP should change the link to another source

to support the points he is making

[zappaman]

14. So is Townhall.com a site you frequent?

Or were you just googling for anti-Clinton horseshit?

[moondust]

21. The oligarchs know

that elections are now determined not so much by substance and record but largely by name recognition and hype--both products of the media they or their buddies control. Therefore they can now decide well in advance whom they want to hype into office and place their quid pro quo bets early, before it's illegal.

[orpupilofnature57]

27. She was one of many who scared us in to paying a bill, sent by clerks, an errand boy, nothing else .

[NYC Liberal]

30. Town fucking hall? We need unrec back since the jury system is clearly broken.

[George II]

35. Last I saw earning money wasn't against the law. In fact, if the man that Sanders....

....is most compared to, FDR, would be a BILLIONAIRE in today's economy.

Bt then if he was alive today, he'd be assailed as an "oligarch" and a 1%-er. So, if Sanders is a modern day FDR, what does that say about him?

[Mnpaul]

38. Revolving Door Politician

I remember when we used to speak out against that sort of thing on DU.

[senz]

43. You could edit your OP, replacing the current source with this source:

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Greed-Hillary-Clinton-s-Achilles-heel-6783244.php

That won't stop them from disliking it but it might lower the noise level.

[snagglepuss]

46. They are just attacking the messenger because they can't refute the fact

that Hillary, unlike republican ex-presidents (who beyond any doubt would've if they could've) has indeed cashed in before entering the Oval Office. That is factual just like every other statement in that article, nothing has been fabricated.

Their being all in a tizzy because TH is a conservative rag is them just trying to divert attention away from the matter at hand.

[senz]

47. This is true. The OP is factual, and that's what bothers them.

They don't anyone looking too closely at her.

It's a good OP.

[MeNMyVolt]

49. Of course it is. Folks like you love Townhall.

[MeNMyVolt]

48. You're posting Townhall sweetheart.

Shit on the bottom of my shoe.

[snagglepuss]

54. And the Oscar for poutrage goes to....

Your schtick doesn't work on me dearest one. The article is factual, no smears, no spin. Originally published in SFgate, TH simply re-ran it. All this drama is merely to deflect attention from the fact the Hillary comprised herself and you nor anyone else can refute it.

The expression that you can't make a silk purse from a pig's ear comes to mind.

Live long and prosper

[NastyRiffraff]

55. So it's come to this:

Town fuckin' Hall on DU. I don't care if you think it's "true." You are quoting a far-right wing site. Why not just go directly to Ann Coulter's site and quote her? Jeez, Skinner, what the hell are you thinking leaving this reeking garbage up?

[snagglepuss]

57. This is not a matter of thinking something true, everything stated is factual IOW true.

Why not deal with the matter at hand which is that Hillary has comprised herself. Ooops you can't do that so more OTT poutrage.

[NastyRiffraff]

58. The matter at hand

is that a far-right site is now considered a credible source on DU. There is no logical excuse for that.

[Fumesucker]

59. Hillary supporters have linked to Stormfront to attack Bernie

I guess that's not considered "right wing" in Hillary World.

[snagglepuss]

61. Cashing in before entering the Oval Office. Hillary demanded those exhoribant fees

because she sold herself as the inevitable next president. Big business complied, happy for the opportunity cement their influence.