2016 Postmortem

sadoldgirl

(3,431 posts)

14. Many people are upset about how former

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 12:22 AM

Jan 2016

office holders are making money out of their former
positions, but that is not the question here, at least
not for me.

The point is that for years HRC had in mind to run
for the presidency while doing just that. And that to me
is not the same as someone, who is finally retiring.

That is the important issue: she planned to get into
the WH, yet using her former positions to get very
wealthy.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

102 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Still can't believe this conversation took place. [View all] SheenaR Jan 2016 OP

It's really crap. Liberal Jesus Freak Jan 2016 #1

They are massively underestimating SheenaR Jan 2016 #2

They don't care at this point. The only goal of "Big Money" now is to stop Bernie. reformist2 Jan 2016 #26

That's spot on. draa Jan 2016 #36

I still can't believe that this conversation took place (TWICE)! TheBlackAdder Jan 2016 #46

He's a master of his craft passiveporcupine Jan 2016 #50

We need Olberman back Joe Shlabotnik Jan 2016 #64

many many many thanks SoLeftIAmRight Jan 2016 #98

Politicians make speeches after elected office. Lucinda Jan 2016 #3

I've often wondered how these people think former politicians are supposed to make a living. Empowerer Jan 2016 #6

Yep. I don't think some people think things through, Lucinda Jan 2016 #8

But do you agree that an average of 226,000 retrowire Jan 2016 #12

I think whatever people are willing to pay, is fine Lucinda Jan 2016 #16

Yes, I think it is reasonable if that's what the going rate for those speeches is Empowerer Jan 2016 #20

Thanks for your reasonable response. retrowire Jan 2016 #33

What's "reasonable" is what people will pay. MeNMyVolt Jan 2016 #29

People keep saying "the Clinton Foundation does good work" like it's well known. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2016 #92

See post 12 because I want your opinion too. nt retrowire Jan 2016 #13

After 5 years it looks pretty good to me.... daleanime Jan 2016 #32

Damn! The more you know. retrowire Jan 2016 #35

I'm glad someone pointed that out. draa Jan 2016 #39

Cattle futures trading catnhatnh Jan 2016 #95

This was investigated ad nauseum in the 1990s and even Ken Starr couldn't find anything wrong Empowerer Jan 2016 #96

No-although with the Clintons it is easy to get confused catnhatnh Jan 2016 #99

But this is prior to seeking the highest office, not after Babel_17 Jan 2016 #25

The HRC speeches being discussed were after her tenure at State and before announcing... Lucinda Jan 2016 #57

Ah, so she was as surprised by her announcement as was I, and the fee payers? Babel_17 Jan 2016 #58

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Lucinda Jan 2016 #61

It was obvious she was thinking of running Babel_17 Jan 2016 #62

So? She wasn't in office, and there is nothing unusual about the speaking engagements. Lucinda Jan 2016 #63

OK, it is what is, and the voters will certainly hear that viewpoint Babel_17 Jan 2016 #67

That's the beauty of our incredibly messy political election system Lucinda Jan 2016 #69

And that's the winning sentiment of this evening/morning! Babel_17 Jan 2016 #70

Same to you! It's tried to snow here, but not doing a very good job of it! Lucinda Jan 2016 #72

:) Good night! (nt) Babel_17 Jan 2016 #74

This message was self-deleted by its author Lucinda Jan 2016 #73

Betcha Jimmy Carter didn't run to Wall Street. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2016 #59

She was a well respected Senator from NY - the financial hub of this country Lucinda Jan 2016 #60

I bet I do.... Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2016 #65

I love Carter, but that has nothing to do with his post POTUS speaking engagements Lucinda Jan 2016 #68

His speeches are public.... Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2016 #79

No...it was nonsense to throw a Carter Center video up to counter my point Lucinda Jan 2016 #80

"I imagine more will be forthcoming" Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2016 #81

Not really. These pieces exist. I'm sure there are others. Did you even Lucinda Jan 2016 #85

The "American Society for Clinical Pathology in Chicago" gave me a chuckle.... Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2016 #91

She isn't the only one with that point of view - Sorkin goes in depth and interviewed Warren Lucinda Jan 2016 #93

LOL! Go watch "The Big Short". Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2016 #94

"Well, your first question was---" followed by something that wasnt the first question. Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #4

I wonder what her DU name is? passiveporcupine Jan 2016 #55

I just mean I see that sort of argument tactic all the time in certain corners, here. Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #75

I know what you were getting at. passiveporcupine Jan 2016 #76

Gotcha. Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #78

From Jan 2014 to May 2015 Hillary made more than $25 million and Bill in 2012 earned 16.3 million. Skwmom Jan 2016 #5

I think her speeches were all after she left State. Lucinda Jan 2016 #10

What was that from? Uncle Joe Jan 2016 #7

Here you go, Uncle Joe JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #37

It's run by bullies. draa Jan 2016 #40

Thanks for the link, JonLeibowitz, that was serious pretzel making. Uncle Joe Jan 2016 #42

Here's the link thesquanderer Jan 2016 #100

K&R It looks like some of the conversations on DU. nt Live and Learn Jan 2016 #9

Hillary is going to unite the country? Doctor_J Jan 2016 #11

Many people are upset about how former sadoldgirl Jan 2016 #14

That Is Indeed THE SOLID Point! Ed Rendell Practically called Her An Idiot! CorporatistNation Jan 2016 #15

Oh! A mindreader! murielm99 Jan 2016 #24

Was that anyone who paid attention to politics in this nation... daleanime Jan 2016 #34

Money going to the Clinton foundation goes to the charity, not to them personally. pnwmom Jan 2016 #17

thats not always where the speaking fees go and you know it Bread and Circus Jan 2016 #45

And yet she isn't taking any positions that benefit the financial industry pnwmom Jan 2016 #48

not reinstating glass steagall benefits them. that took me 2 seconds to come up with. Bread and Circus Jan 2016 #52

Maybe you should read what Krugman has to say about that. n/t pnwmom Jan 2016 #53

here is something to read before you go to bed Bread and Circus Jan 2016 #56

No it doesn't. Lucinda Jan 2016 #71

ok you and the other person above need better reading comprehension Bread and Circus Jan 2016 #83

Krugman has nothing to do with my post. if you'd read the links you'd know that. n/t Lucinda Jan 2016 #87

Well, you are just wrong and your point is a non sequiter Bread and Circus Jan 2016 #88

Bill and Hillary turned into big time Yuppies. Bernie did not. He's more like the average American. jalan48 Jan 2016 #18

Wasn't this posted by this person either earlier today or yesterday? SoapBox Jan 2016 #19

I did not post this SheenaR Jan 2016 #21

That was pretty lol inducing Babel_17 Jan 2016 #22

lol. one of my oft used clips! nt restorefreedom Jan 2016 #28

They took a cliche and made it magnificent Babel_17 Jan 2016 #30

geniuses, truly. nt restorefreedom Jan 2016 #31

They know accepting those fees is a political liability, so let's just change the topic now. PoliticalMalcontent Jan 2016 #23

Well, Shaheen IS Third Way, and Third Way IS PatrickforO Jan 2016 #27

+1 valerief Jan 2016 #38

The premise is wrong here Z_California Jan 2016 #41

Exactly! Juicy_Bellows Jan 2016 #54

Did he ever say it was in the past? LoveIsNow Jan 2016 #43

That was my reaction as well Samantha Jan 2016 #66

No. He's still a democratic socialist. NT Eric J in MN Jan 2016 #97

ummmm... that was in the past so it doesn't matter? Bread and Circus Jan 2016 #44

they write their own scripts in their heads. passiveporcupine Jan 2016 #47

The whole speeches thing is ridiculous bhikkhu Jan 2016 #49

IF we could, we would. The speeches were given in private, no media allowed. peacebird Jan 2016 #82

you are confused. the speech income we are talking about is personal income. not foundation donation Bread and Circus Jan 2016 #84

It has to be personal income before it can be donated bhikkhu Jan 2016 #86

“Anybody who thinks they can buy me doesn’t know me,” Babel_17 Jan 2016 #51

lol tazkcmo Jan 2016 #77

one campaign represents real anger due to issues, the other fake anger from centrally- MisterP Jan 2016 #89

There's no way to spin this as a positive, hence the throwing shade. Orsino Jan 2016 #90

I'd be mad, but I am too damn busy laughing. Kalidurga Jan 2016 #101

Kicketty Kickin' Faux pas Jan 2016 #102