2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Still can't believe this conversation took place. [View all]Empowerer
(3,900 posts)If the organization paying that fee thinks it's worth it to them, then it's a reasonable fee. It's no less reasonable than an athlete making millions of dollars per game or a lawyer earning $1500 per hour or consultants making much more than that. When someone pays Clinton that kind of money (and most of his speeches don't command anything close to that), it's because they can afford it and his presence is bringing value to whatever event he's participating in.
The Clintons do an enormous amount of charity work. Much of the work that Bill Clinton does, he does for no money at all - I know this because I have been involved in efforts that he has supported and he has traveled and spoken on their behalf for no money at his own expense. And remember, those fees go to the Foundation, not to the Clintons personally. The fees help to pay staff salaries, expenses, but more importantly, they underwrite the work that the Foundation does around the world. And the Foundation does outstanding work and has made a tremendous difference, something that we as progressives should be very proud of.
Everybody is not Jimmy Carter and I don't think everyone should be expected to be Jimmy Carter. I also do not begrudge a former president making a lots of money after they leave office. Frankly, I don't understand this notion that earning a lot of money is per se bad. Yes, I think we have misplaced values in this society and I don't like that we so substantially undervalue and underpay our country's most valuable workers - e.g., teachers, firefighters, police officers, paramedics, etc. But the fact that we don't pay them enough doesn't mean that we should hate on people who earn good money that people are more than willing to pay them. Attacking Clinton for making money, in my view, is just petty.