The issue is that Mr Sanders and his supporters believe or act as if they believe that Wall Street are, almost by definition, wholly illegitimate players on the American economic scene and that HRC, by virtue of speaking to them, betrays democracy and decency themselves.


I realize that Mr Sanders says the issue is the speaking fees, but that's a red-herring; people who speak to business group get fees; it's her very associating with Wall Street that makes her unacceptable. The problem with this thinking is that it's not much different from the claim that presidents who choose dialogue with our more ingrained adversaries are illegitimate presidents.


The amounts of the fees, too, are an irrelevant dodge, and a comparison of them with the Sanders family income...a recent meme bandied about as if it's a legitimate not meaningful. It's as if I were to argue that, say, London School of Economics visiting professors' speech fees and those receiving them are tainted because I, myself, have been paid to speak only by Chinese universities whose budgets are well smaller.


Unless one is certain that the financial industry must have no role -- not even a far more regulated role in a proper America, that speaking to Wall Street groups therefore is in itself disqualifying, the fees canard is unworthy of those making the claim.

Views: 926

Comment by Jonathan Wolfman on April 17, 2016 at 5:24am

What a gorgeous Sunday it is here in Maryland!  

Comment by koshersalaami on April 17, 2016 at 6:04am
Is Bernie in the paid keynote speech business?

Yes, it's a canard. There's a sliding scale for fees depending on how famous you are and how much status is involved in landing you as a speaker. Most of these speeches are canned - there often isn't a difference in terms of what a speaker says before any given audience, like a stump speech. The speaker show up, delivers the speech, and normally leaves.

Maybe the foundation donation stuff has legs. I don't know because I haven't seen data on who ostensibly gets a favor when they give vs. who doesn't get a favor when they give. In other words, if a lot of other parties gave large donations without any associated favors, there would be no obvious link between giving a lot and getting a favor. I also haven't seen data on how a donation to the Clinton foundation actually profits the Clintons, if at all.

But the speaking fees thing is total bullshit. There's plenty of available data on that industry available online.
Comment by Jonathan Wolfman on April 17, 2016 at 6:10am

It sure is.

Comment by JMac1949 Today on April 17, 2016 at 6:46am

The Clinton have always had cozy relations with business and from Whitewater on it's cost their reputation.  Both Bill and HRC and even Chelsea have taken advantage of opportunities made available to them that were beyond the reach of ordinary Americans.  It comes with the territory and Red Herring or just just plain BS politicos right and left have attacked them as corrupt. If and when she's elected POTUS, HRC has much more to worry about with her misuse of personal email than her speaking fees.

Comment by Jonathan Wolfman on April 17, 2016 at 6:51am

If the email charges really have actionable 'legs' I'll be surprised. 

Comment by Jeanne Sathre on April 17, 2016 at 7:07am

Are you at all interested in what she said in the speeches? That's where I see a potential issue.

Comment by Jonathan Wolfman on April 17, 2016 at 7:14am

Not really, bc there's not a chance in hell that, were they to be what Mr Sanders implies, someone in attendance who wants a Republican to face Mr Sanders in the Fall would have spoken to a reporter, a la Mr Romney's 47% speech and Mother Jones getting hold of it. 

Comment by tr ig on April 17, 2016 at 7:23am
Quite a few reports from GS attendees on what was said. About what you'd expect--her heaping praise on them, and laying out the reasons why the financial collapse disaster recession/depression wasn't really their fault, etc.. .. try google.
May be a red herring to you JW but to those of us whose lives were ruined and are scared to death of an act III, it is a real issue.
Comment by Jonathan Wolfman on April 17, 2016 at 7:28am

The idea that speaking to WS groups, business grps in general, is disqualifying is at best silly. 

Where are the statements from which you get your certainty as to what was said?

When I spoke to Chinese grps in China, I could easily open acknowledging China's successes w.o endorsing statist communism. 

Comment by Myriad on April 17, 2016 at 8:52am

Sometimes I think it's a purity issue. Reminds me of those obsessive OT guys worrying about wearing linen with wool or whatever. (Excuse my inbred Christianity wriggling to the surface, but Jesus came along and said some relevant stuff about casting stones and getting beams outta one's own eyes, etc. Ie, sermons about accepting existential impurity, seems to me.) Or like kids (I was one) who arrange their food into segregated sections, never any two to touch, no matter how the resident grown-up goes on about how they'll get mixed in your stomach chrissake. We want *pure* candidates. What are people like the Clintons to do to earn a living - flip hamburgers? At least they didn't get jobs working in the banking industry. We also want politicians who will promise good things and follow through, as if that were possible (they ain't dictators...they've got all those churlish congress-critturs lined up against them).


You need to be a member of Our Salon to add comments!

Join Our Salon


Trump trusts his gut

Posted by Dicky Neely on July 21, 2018 at 2:11pm 0 Comments

Apartheid Version 2.0

Posted by Safe Bet's Amy on July 21, 2018 at 7:32am 4 Comments

Dreaming at My Age

Posted by Ben Sen on July 20, 2018 at 7:00pm 0 Comments


Posted by Ben Sen on July 20, 2018 at 11:14am 2 Comments

Off With His Head!!!!!

Posted by Safe Bet's Amy on July 20, 2018 at 7:03am 11 Comments

© 2018   Created by lorianne.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service