dagblog - Comments for " And, Here's Hillary: The Clintons’ Paid-Speech Bonanza"

I like Bernie better than

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 20:13:21 +0000

I like Bernie better than Hillary but I am luke warm on him at best. I don't think anything I have said about him would characterize me as a supporter in any strong way. I have posted several articles here that are quite critical of him in ways that I often agreed with. And, believe it or not I do not know what you mean when you say that Sanders supporter seem to want to unilaterally disarm. I agree that campaign cash is closely related to the topic of big money in politics. I said that I almost everybody believes that to be a problem and I agree. Who doesn't, I wonder. But, that was partly to distinguish legal money that shouldn't be legal from the particular way that has been used to give Hillary and Bill huge amounts of money legally. I have called it laundering of a gift and I stand by that.

A big donor to a particular candidate's campaign may honestly do it for principled reasons. They all say that they do. But that isn't the main topic. The topic is the appearance that Is created by Hillary putting $50,000 a pop into her own pocket . The topic is:

With primary voting set to start next month, one of Hillary Clinton’s remaining hurdles is convincing Democratic voters that she is not beholden to Wall Street and other wealthy interests that have fattened her family’s bank account with tens of millions of dollars for paid speeches.

Hillary has CEO's and others giving her other enough of other people's money to make her very rich [they tend to do pretty well and stay on top as long as they can use other people's money in any way they choose] and yes, I am a bit cynical. I like Bernie's image way better.

You know exactly what I'm

ocean-kat — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 19:20:55 +0000

In reply to The choice Sanders supporters

You know exactly what I'm talking about. You just don't have a good argument to make so both you and Hal have refused to address it. Campaign cash is a very closely related issue to the topic you raised. I've seen you raise issues that are much farther removed from the blog topic and expect discussion. So spin spin spin if that's the way you want to play it.

And Clinton has left

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 18:38:10 +0000

In reply to I didnt see any $420,000

And Clinton has left herself open to that charge by profiting off her government experience, racking up $11.8 million in 51 speaking fees in the 14-month period from January 2014 to March 2015 before she became an official candidate for President, according to disclosure records.

My bad, I did some simple math in my head rounding everything and missed a bit. 11.8 million divided by 51 equals an average of $231372.54902 per speech. They were said to be from 30 minutes to an hour so I intended to use 45 minutes for an average but apparently used 30 minutes which makes her rate $7712.41830065 per minute. But $231372.54902 divided by 45 equals $5141.61220044 per minute. I guess that changes everything.

Hillary isn't considered honest because schmucks can't reason. $2 billion to her family charity doesn't go to her pocket. Money to her campaign doesn't go to her pocket ...

And some brilliant numbshmuck can't argue what was actually said. I never said that campaign funds or gifts to her charity went into her pocket. I only spoke of the $5141.61220044 per minute for giving a speech that went into her pocket.

Do you think or even suspect that those who paid those big bucks had a financial or ideological motive in doing so? Wouldn't a CEO who was spending shareholder money at an exorbitant rate have a fiduciary obligation to spend it in a way that brought in a return? What could THEY have been thinking

Hillary isn't considered

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 17:43:04 +0000

In reply to " - ah, but you treat her

Hillary isn't considered honest because schmucks can't reason. $2 billion to her family charity doesn't go to her pocket. Money to her campaign doesn't go to her pocket (including what she lends or gives to her own campaign). Only those 14 months when she wasn't secretary of state nor presidential candidate could she do those speeches, $230k avg, which is normal for someone of her stature. So fuck off already. No, Joe Blow doesn't make this kind of money, nor does he marry the Heinz princess nor get $1 mill from Dad to start a business or make a half a billion as venture capitalist or 10s of millions as trial lawyer or millions from Vp/president pappy's friends to start her own oil company. She and her husband built those connections, and while wealthy they're also still giving, unlike George who fucked the economy and fucked Iraq and now sits around painting moronic paintings and applauding his idiot dynasty brother who has $100 mill in Carlyle money he can't make work for him. Get it yet? There are dozens of unworthy assholes out there sucking up money, and she's trying and you're spending more time giving her shit than anyone else. Congrats, I think.

I didnt see any $420,000

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 17:23:03 +0000

In reply to " - ah, but you treat her

I didnt see any $420,000 speeches, so I guess she spoke less than an hour. I don't think she can do these paid speeches as a candidate, so I don't think it's me and OK's "mistake".

You calling speeches unethical certainly doesn't make it so.

Hillary's been out of office, but that's not good enough for you - she's no Reagan, no Jfk I guess

I know you're able to read, so how did you get half a mill for 30 minutes? Her payments are between $100k and $325k - most at $225k. Trying to trash your credibility? Congrats, succeeding. A far cry from Reagan $2mill

The choice Sanders supporters

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 17:13:02 +0000

In reply to to tar Hillary supporters

The choice Sanders supporters seem to favor is unilateral disarmament.

I don't know what you are talking about, what that refers to. As to raising campaign money and the necessity of doing so, that is not what the article is about. It is about the Clintons being gifted money by way of a ruse and so becomes theirs to do with as they please and I don't expect any of it to go to the DNC, for instance. It is about the appearance of that money being paid for services rendered or services to come or both. That appearance is important whether correct or not. Her election may hinge on that. The article was about reasons for that perception. Did you actually miss that? Do you believe that the money was for the value of the speech? Really?

I suppose Hillary would be

Ramona — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 17:10:45 +0000

In reply to " - ah, but you treat her

I suppose Hillary would be considered honest, too, if she weren't subjected to the constant steaming heaps of "maybe she is and maybe she isn't" attacks from both sides.

Show some real proof that she is in Wall Street's pocket. Payment for speeches won't do it.

" - ah, but you treat her

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 16:55:43 +0000

In reply to "4] She isn’t different. That

" - ah, but you treat her very different, as if she is one of the slimiest of the slimy.

One mistake both you and OK are making is to defend the more than seven-thousand-dollar-a-minute money that legally [but ethically?] goes directly into her own pocket with money legally donated to finance a political campaign. Do you really not see the difference? Those legal political contributions are problematic enough to our democratic system but what the article I presented explores is the huge amount of money funneled directly into the Clinton’s personal accounts. If corporations, foreign governments, etc, simply gave Hillary and Bill millions of dollars during a short period between her tenure as SoS and the time she began officially running for President would that be brazen enough to lead to some legitimate questions? I called the act of paying big bucks for a speech a way of laundering money that would most probably be illegal if simply given and it would certainly be unethical to accept it, at least IMHO.

As I said above, Hillary didn’t invent this method of getting rich off of her political standing but she has taken it to new heights and into new territory. Ronald Reagan was excoriated for taking $2 million for two speeches in Japan after he left office. That excoriation came from Democrats while Republicans defended him and now things are reversed and the sides of the attackers and defenders has flip flopped which is business as usual but at least Reagan was out of office before he took the money. Do you really believe that those who paid Hillary half a million dollars for a thirty minute speech were paying that money for the value of the words spoken? You may, but don’t expect me to believe it. More importantly, don’t count on all the disaffected Democrats and independents to believe it.

As the preface to the article said:

With primary voting set to start next month, one of Hillary Clinton’s remaining hurdles is convincing Democratic voters that she is not beholden to Wall Street and other wealthy interests that have fattened her family’s bank account with tens of millions of dollars for paid speeches.

Bernie is weak tea but he is widely considered to be honest. This might be a year when that is important.

"4] She isn’t different. That

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 09:19:05 +0000

In reply to 1] Yeah, it’s a dangerous

"4] She isn’t different. That is exactly the point. Percentages of the soul that was sold may vary somewhat from one case to another. " - ah, but you treat her very different, as if she is one of the slimiest of the slimy.

Was she so slimy when she was raising money for McGovern and doing get-out-the-vote? Was she getting rich from Wall Street and Big Pharma in 1993 when she spent much of her political capital trying to get universal healthcare through? Has her only motivation since 1972 been money and power, or if not, when did she become so corrupt that you have to go on and on about her negatives?

I gave a small amount of money to her campaign once - surprisingly, I wasn't expecting any special favors - I was expecting her to do a good job. I can easily imagine if I were a multi-multi-millionaire I might spend $300K for a speech or for a campaign or for some other type of support *without* expecting any kickback, special benefit, other than her doing what I think would be a better job than any of the others could do. You continuously ignore this aspect of her support - you present it as every dime she gets for the Clinton Foundation or a speech or for her campaign is some criminal-minded rogue waiting for some shady benefit out in the alley.

And the "venality" of the system is part of the fuel. Someone noted that as SoS, Hillary managed to get some oil company to pony up $2 million or so for the US Expo in Beijing - yeah, that's part of getting things done. The Clinton Foundation raising $2 billion for charitable causes is a plus more than a minus - it means they have the possibility of funding their good ideas, and for someone who's wasted a lot of time on good ideas without financial backing, I can appreciate that. I don't really care about the asterisk next to Bernie's name about small donors - yeah, it's great for him to have many supporters (as does Hillary), but at the end of the day he'll need some heavy hitters to work with him.

And as OceanKat notes, I think Hillary will be more effective in reviving and paying for the 50-state approach that would improve the roots of the Democratic party, not just the feeble weak president at the top fighting the entrenched opposing party throughout his/her tenure.

And this may surprise you, but I think it's a lot more likely that rich donors will work with Hillary without expecting any quid-pro-quo than working with Bernie. He's a nobody, and for someone to put a lot of time and money into him requires either serious infatuation or a fat payoff.

to tar Hillary supporters

ocean-kat — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 09:01:15 +0000

In reply to 1] Yeah, it’s a dangerous

to tar Hillary supporters that hypocritically absolve her

We don't absolve her. We tend to think people focus on her for opprobrium while not applying the same standard to others. But I know this is an important issue for you so I'm sure you wouldn't do that. I must have missed all the post you wrote attacking Obama for taking pac money and large donations. Remind me with a couple of links. I think Hillary is as influenced by the money she got as Obama was influenced by the money he got.

So yeah, let’s be real, do you suggest that we accept the venality of the system as the best we can do or might it be worthwhile acknowledging what our choices entail so as to consider other choices.

The choice Sanders supporters seem to favor is unilateral disarmament. This has been discussed a few times and I've never seen a good answer or usually any answer at all. I think that's the worst choice available. The system is what it is whether we accept it or not, pretending won't make it go away or change it. The republicans aren't going to take the high road and refuse the money. I think democrats should have enough money to compete. But it's not just about Hillary or Sanders. For a presidential candidate with sufficient popularity money from small donors is fairly easy to get. It's the down ballot races that are often starved for cash. Hillary isn't just raising money for her campaign. She has also raised at least 18 million for the DNC. That money is used in the states for house and senate races. If the republicans control the house and senate nothing Hillary or Sanders wants to do will get passed. I haven't seen anything about Sanders raising any money for down ballot races. Sanders may be honorable but he's not pragmatic.

Both Hillary and Sanders have said they will appoint Supreme Court justices that will overturn Citizen's United.