How Obama Could End Criticism Of His Wall Street Speech
Barack Obama caused somewhat of a tizzy last week, when it was announced he would be giving a speech to some bastions of Wall Street, for a cool $400,000 speaking fee. Some were simply aghast at the idea, for a couple of different reasons. But there's one way Obama could make most of the criticism disappear (at least that portion coming from the left), and that is by making one simple promise. If Obama pledged to immediately release the transcript of his speech right after he gave it, he could defuse a lot of the angst the idea is causing among progressives. The speech reportedly won't be given until September, so Obama isn't facing an immediate deadline; but the faster he swears he'll release the text of his speech, the better for him politically.
Obama has somewhat of a mixed record with Wall Street. It didn't get a lot of media focus initially, but Obama raised record-setting amounts of funding from Wall Street during his presidential campaigns. Most voters were so swept up in the hope and change and "Yes we can!" that they didn't pay much attention to the mountains of cash Obama's campaign was raking in from Wall Street. Balancing that is the fact that Obama signed the Dodd/Frank bill, which was the biggest Wall Street reform package in decades. It wasn't perfect (what legislation is?), but Obama also saw the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau during his presidency as well (although Elizabeth Warren rightfully gets the lion's share of this credit). Obama accepted generous donations from Wall Street while also taking big steps to reform the worst of their abuses -- in other words, a mixed record at best.
This is one of the reasons why some people were taken aback at the idea of Obama personally cashing in from speaking to the Wall Street fatcats. It just sounded so... unseemly, somehow. In an age when Progressivism is on the rise in the Democratic Party, this appeared to be a big step back to the bad old ways of Wall Street-friendly Democratic centrism (see: Bill Clinton's D.L.C., for instance). It also reopened the wounds of the 2016 Democratic primary race, where Hillary Clinton refused to admit exactly what she'd said to the Wall Street fatcats (also for large sums of money).
Then there was criticism that (pun intended, sadly) was quite a bit darker. Some pearl-clutchers inside the Beltway were shocked -- shocked! -- that any politician would ever do anything so crass as to make money off their political fame. At least, that's what they said (sample Washington Post headline: "Is $60 Million Really Not Enough For The Obamas?"). This, however, didn't go over well with a certain segment of the population, who countered with: "So let me get this straight -- the first black president is also supposed to be the first one who somehow isn't allowed to make money after leaving the White House? Is that really what you're saying?!?" I'll leave these "Obama wants to make money -- how extraordinary!" criticisms alone, because I think those who are currently pushing back against them are already doing a fine job of doing so, and thus need no help from me.
Instead, I think Obama addressing the criticisms of giving a speech to any Wall Street group (some have suggested he do a "poverty tour" instead, which would be oh-so-progressive) is actually pretty easy to do. All it would take for Obama to silence his critics would be to release a statement saying something along the lines of the following:
I will never stop speaking truth to power -- that's a promise I intend to keep for the rest of my life. Some have criticized me for accepting an invitation to speak to a group of Wall Street bankers. Much like those who wanted to bar Ann Coulter from speaking to students at Berkeley, though, their thinking seems to be that each speaker must always be a perfect ideological match with the audience he or she is speaking to. I reject such thinking, because if we only preach to the choir, how is anyone going to ever change anyone else's mind? I will speak to whomever I choose, but I will not adjust or compromise my principles when doing so. To this end, I have directed the agency which handles my bookings to insert a clause in my standard speaker's contract to allow me to publicly release a transcript of my remarks, right after I give them in person. So after I give a speech to Wall Street, you'll be able to read exactly what I said to them -- and that's a promise. I think what people will find is that when I prepare a speech for such a crowd, I do not tailor my message to them or water down my principles in any way. I hope this will bring an end to any controversy about my speeches.
In one fell swoop, Obama could silence the substantial criticisms currently being lobbed against him. The only potential drawback would be if the group decided it wasn't going to pay for a speech that would then be released to the public. But I doubt this would happen. After all, the public's interest in this speech is already very high, months in advance. If Obama were allowed to release the transcript, it would continue to be big and highly-anticipated news. Just in terms of advertising value alone, that should be well worth it for the group inviting him, I would think.
Obama making such an announcement would, of course, be a big slap in the face to Hillary Clinton. This cannot be avoided. Her insistence to never reveal what she had told Wall Street audiences cost her dearly with the Democratic voting base. She already had trust issues, and many Bernie Sanders voters just flat-out didn't believe her apparent newfound love of Populism. The secret speech transcripts just reinforced this perception, whether it was fair or not. "What does she tell the fatcats behind closed doors, that she refuses to own up to later?" everyone wondered.
But so be it. Obama should be allowed to set his own standards for his career as a paid speaker. And Clinton certainly can't complain too much about Obama cashing in post-presidency, since she and her husband have so successfully done so for almost two decades now. That's not a criticism directed at her or Bill per se, since they were merely following the same path every president since Ronald Reagan has lucratively followed. It is what ex-presidents do, in the modern era. The only president who remained above this money-grubbing fray that I can recall is Jimmy Carter, who decided to go build houses for the poor after his presidency. Hard to criticize that.
Barack Obama can come out of this controversy smelling like a rose. By publicly pledging to release the transcript, he successfully counters criticism that he's secretly sucking up to Wall Street. By writing a speech full of vim and vigor which takes Wall Street to task for some of their continuing abuses, Obama would be going into the lions' den and speaking truth to power (and all the rest of the clichés). Reading such a speech would cause progressive hearts to soar, in fact. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren might end up praising Obama for the boldness of his speech, in the end. By showing he's got nothing to hide when it comes to speaking to Wall Street, Obama could wind up increasing his already-high stature within the Democratic Party. That seems worth inserting a single clause into his standard speaking contract for any and all groups he speaks to in the future.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
@CW,
releasing the transcripts would be a step in the right direction. however, the bigger underlying problem is that obama's public rhetoric doesn't always match the policies he advocates. remember the article/cartoon we did back in 2012? on every facet of education, obama talked the talk of supporting public education, but walked his policies in the opposite direction.
i'm sure he can still turn a phrase that makes everyone feel like their interests are the only ones in the room. however, on the policy front, a lot of the damage has already been done, and words to the contrary may ring hollow.
JL
JL
1
i'm sure he can still turn a phrase that makes everyone feel like their interests are the only ones in the room. however, on the policy front, a lot of the damage has already been done, and words to the contrary may ring hollow.
Again, JL makes yet another great point. I think Obama possesses an ability to convince a large portion of voters across the spectrum on the left as well as some on the right that his interests are the same as theirs; Trump has this ability also, just quite a different style -- hope, change, and move forward versus fear, loathing, and go backward. That language of theirs is by design although certainly nothing that the tincture of time won't cure for anyone paying attention to the rhetoric versus the reality.
Chris,
Do you think that having a clause in the contract that says a transcript of the speech will be released, in due time if not immediately, would, in any way, impact the amount of money that would flow to Obama from Canter Fitzgerald for giving this keynote speech?
Hey gang
Al Qaida in Yemen began expanding their influence when the US backed Saudi war began, because the Saudis were targeting the people who were fighting al Qaida, but now the armed groups we are supporting are actually fighting alongside al Qaida...
... just like in Syria... (where their key "eyewitness accounts" provided the "evidence" to justify Trump's missile strike).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-yemen-al-qaeda_us_5907641de4b05c397680fff7?section=us_politics
(an article that was up on the HuffPo homepage today for a few hours, unlike an article about how awesome Ivanka is to her neighbors which has been up for five days... the priorities of the "liberal media")
And, just a reminder that the AUMF that provides the supposed legal basis for all these actions without additional congressional approval is the one from 2001 after 9/11 that launched the Global War On Terror to target al Qaida.
A
Chris,
It was an unpleasant surprise to learn about Obama’s Wall Street speech. And, just releasing the transcripts after the fact in an effort to blunt the criticism is really missing the sharp point of the criticism. There are a few things he should do before transcripts can be released.
First off, he has a lot of explaining to do. Refusing to comment about this now widely publicized speech will do nothing to enhance his presidential legacy.
By agreeing to take an unprecedented sum of money from Wall Street to give a keynote speech at a Wall Street firm’s healthcare conference, President Obama, who arguably compromised too much on healthcare and Wall Street reform, has added – in a big way – to a debilitating level of cynicism that is already out there in the electorate, built up over years, which leads many voters to the conclusion, dangerously faulty as it most decidedly is, that there is no difference between the parties and which has, in no small part, led us to the current mess we are in.
For me, it is a tone-deafness on the part of the former president that calls for a reassessment of certain critical aspects of his presidency and who he really is as we are talking about the perception of “cashing in” on a presidency that often veered away from the path of doing what was right for the sake of compromise and in the name of moving forward. Consequently, it's hard not to view his choices as president in a somewhat different light. It’s almost as if nothing was learned during the last election cycle!
Now, if he plans to advocate for a ‘single-payer’ government-run healthcare system in his keynote address, then his speech may just be worth the handsome sum he has agreed.
In one fell swoop Obama will give away his act. This is like demanding that a comedian immediately release a video of their show after the first concert on the tour - that isn't how it works - Obama has to keep his performance limited to in person audiences as long as possible to cash in. If they can watch it on Youtube they won't be interested in paying for it after the first show.
The draw is the celebrity (last President and Obama - wow) plus that you are one of the first to hear his summary and can brag about it afterwards.
He is a private citizen. Who has the right to demand he publicly publish his speeches?
Why is this difficult to understand?
OK, sorry to hark back to the last thread, but I just want to say to Altohone, who I regard as very smart and informed, that my species analogy only allows for one species on the planet - you can't mix them. Sorry, just needed to say that.
Neil,
That misses the point, completely.
No one has the right to demand he release the transcripts and, he has every right to accept any outrageous fee for a speech that his heart desires.
But, that's not who he portrayed himself to be when he was president. And, there were things he did as president, and things he didn't do, that can and will be seen in a different light as a result of his decision to cash in on his presidency.
He probably thinks that it won't affect his legacy. And, in another time, it might not have. But, we are not in another time and, like it or not, this decision of his could have a long-lasting and largely negative impact on what he wishes his legacy to be.
All will depend on what he says in his keynote address and when any of it ever sees the light of day.
Neil [7],
Are we supposed to know what you're talking about?
:-)
Are we supposed to know what you're talking about?
No, it is a complicate analogy that 90% exists in my head ;)
Hey CW
"Obama has somewhat of a mixed record with Wall Street. It didn't get a lot of media focus initially, but Obama raised record-setting amounts of funding from Wall Street during his presidential campaigns... Balancing that is the fact that Obama signed the Dodd/Frank bill, which was the biggest Wall Street reform package in decades."
Dodd/Frank was meant to address the systemic risk posed by Too Big To Fail banks. Instead, under Obama's "leadership", those banks all got BIGGER and now pose an even larger systemic risk to our economy.
Furthermore, many of the KEY regulations in the legislation were never even implemented by Obama's regulators.
Assuming that that amounts to a "balancing" against millions in campaign donations, which it doesn't, what completely unbalances the equation is the utter failure of the Obama administration to prosecute ANY of the banksters for their massive, economy destroying fraud...
... and the failure to even mention that fact in such a column sticks out like two sore thumbs.
"In an age when Progressivism is on the rise in the Democratic Party, this appeared to be a big step back to the bad old ways of Wall Street-friendly Democratic centrism (see: Bill Clinton's D.L.C., for instance)."
Right wing economic policy may qualify as "centrism" among the establishment in DC, but it never has among the people. Even a majority of Republicans are fed up with Wall Street coddling.
It is a big step back, and the perception will remain, and further damage Obama's legacy.
"All it would take for Obama to silence his critics"
I think you are seriously underestimating the rage, and the ability of a statement along those lines and a release of the transcript to put a dent in it.
"She already had trust issues, and many Bernie Sanders voters just flat-out didn't believe her apparent newfound love of Populism. The secret speech transcripts just reinforced this perception, whether it was fair or not. "What does she tell the fatcats behind closed doors, that she refuses to own up to later?" everyone wondered."
Thanks to WikiLeaks, we learned that it was completely "fair" because she did indeed tell the fat cats behind closed doors a very different story than what she was telling voters.
"Barack Obama can come out of this controversy smelling like a rose. By publicly pledging to release the transcript, he successfully counters criticism that he's secretly sucking up to Wall Street. By writing a speech full of vim and vigor which takes Wall Street to task for some of their continuing abuses""
Again, no he won't come out of it smelling like a rose, and even if he does give Wall Streeters a stern lecture, it will be absolutely meaningless from someone who is in no position to actually do anything any more. Trees don't fear toothless beavers.
OK, harsh criticism for a column, I know, but you probably expected it from me.
However, if this is a clever attempt to force Obama to release the transcript and set a precedent for Democrats going forward, it may actually serve a good purpose, even though I believe the damage Obama is causing will hurt Democrats badly. And if it was a clever ploy, it would have been more effective by including the omissions I noted and shaming Obama properly.
Obama could give a hundred speeches and put the money towards helping the victims of the 10,000,000 foreclosures on his watch (a majority of which could have been prevented) and it still wouldn't put a dent in the harm caused to the 30 million or so people who lost their homes.
Just as an aside, the BBC has an article up now about Trump talking about breaking up the big banks... and it concludes by basically saying that it is an empty political ploy to gain favor with his supporters, and that he will intentionally allow the proposal to fail in Congress... which is not all that dissimilar from Obama's "reforms".
A
Glad to hear it! :)
Of course, [12] was in response to [10].
What if, in a few months, after he has got $400K for the first event, then $250 for the next few (you always pay most for the premier) he turns out to have delivered a perfectly acceptable speech?
Isn't this the most likely outcome. Are people going to write history books differently in 50 years time because his round up of events wasn't put in front of the contemporary audience tout suite?
He will be judged for many things, but the timing of the release of the transcript of his first post-presidential speech will not be one of them.
Al,
Dodd/Frank was meant to address the systemic risk posed by Too Big To Fail banks. Instead, under Obama's "leadership", those banks all got BIGGER and now pose an even larger systemic risk to our economy.
That's not necessarily true, especially if efforts to water down Dodd-Frank prove unsuccessful.
While some financial institutions did get bigger, it doesn't necessarily mean that they pose an even larger systemic risk. At least, not the ones that are subject to the rules and regulations set out as a result of Dodd-Frank.
The fact is, we won't know how well Dodd-Frank will work until it is put to the test and a financial institution that becomes a risk to the system as a whole is put out of its misery via the Dodd-Frank "death panels". Heh.
He will be judged for many things, but the timing of the release of the transcript of his first post-presidential speech will not be one of them.
Agreed.
The fact is, we won't know how well Dodd-Frank will work until it is put to the test and a financial institution that becomes a risk to the system as a whole is put out of its misery via the Dodd-Frank "death panels". Heh.
The stress testing that accompanies Dodd-Frank is meant to simulate a crash similar in magnitude to 2008. If the models are accurate, then Dodd-Frank may well have added some valuable stability into the financial system. If 45 decimates D-F then we will never know. I personally, from some first hand experience, believe that D-F stress testing is adding stability - if it enough to weather another 2008 is far more debatable, in my opinion.
Splitting the banks might do some good, however it was the interconnections of complex financial transactions when suddenly one counterparty in a massive knot of interconnected obligations was not able to meet their commitments that caused the mess. Splitting retail and investment banking will not change that, even if it does get personal banking monies further away from the gordian knot that is out financial system.
neil
7
Got it.
Was hoping for more though.
Speaking of which, any comment on the UK politics comment?
A
Liz
15
Well, it was watered down substantially in the process, and parts never implemented, but I hope that is accurate, because finding out it isn't could be much more painful.
And the sheer size of the banks, and the proven nature of those in charge, creates a looming threat regardless.
They have done nothing that should lead anyone to trust them.
A
btw Liz
There's a response in the previous column too.
And one for Kick as well.
A
I'm really conflicted on this one.
Releasing transcripts immediately after the speech seems like one-half of a fell swoop to me. There is still a greasy residue of quid pro quo about the whole thing.
Ticket prices are ridiculous these days, but even Broadway Hamilton can be had (in theory)for $440 on a Tues. plus another $40 if you want a parking pass. A dedicated prole can, in theory*, afford that simply by cutting out Starbucks for a good portion of the year. My guess is that no amount of scrimping is going to get John/Jane Q. Public a seat, even one behind a girder. Shakespeare's Globe let in groundlings for a penny....you have to ponder a bit when you see an aspect of modern society less egalitarian/open than Elizabethan London. On the plus side, there is less filth in the streets of modern NYC....except during a garbage strike. Less great theater, but a longer life span not to see it.
*Hamilton has been widely praised for "raising ticket prices to foil scalpers." God bless 'em.
Speaking of which, any comment on the UK politics comment?
Basically, the parliamentary Labour Party represents the voting public, and the Labour Party membership represent the historical Labour Party.
Thus we have a Labour Party where the leader and policies are chosen by the party membership but is tragically behind the Tories in the polls.
Take your pick - the pure lefties of the membership, or the pragmatic lefties of the parliamentary Party.
Adding a twist into this is that in the past the leader was only chosen by the MPs and a few chosen ones - think the Democratic primaries where only the superdelegates get a vote. This was overturned and the more committed public, who are more extreme in their views than the general public, elected Corbyn. The only problem is that this turns the general election into a combination of the Labour leadership election and the Labour/Tory choice at the same time.
The Tory party is fairly venal, and the U.K. press is way more inflammatory than the press over here - Murdoch used the British press in the same way as Fox News - with one sided views and a lot of outright lies to try to swing enough of the populace to his right wing viewpoint.
Britain has had 40 years of building its economy, legal structure, social structure and attitudes as part of the E.U. - leaving is so asinine I don't know where to start, and I'm not seeing leadership from the Labour Party that says: "elect us and we'll have a do over on the EU referendum" - maybe I'm missing that message, but without it, May gets to frame the election as "who do you trust to represent Britain in the Brexit negotiations?" Sadly, Corbyn has no history as a leader and to date hasn't been able to reach out to his own party beyond his small, but enthusiastic, base.
The U.K. is a mess - and Scotland and N.I. may not be part of it at this rate.
So, to sum up, Tony Blair looks and talks like the center of the British electorate (where the votes are) but has personal problems as a public figure. Corbyn looks and feels like a return to the hard left days of Michael Foot. Basically we need a Neil Kinnock type to step up - the time might be right - and Elizabeth would like him - he is where Biden get's his speeches from ;)
Hey gang
The resistance of the indivisible Democrats in Congress crumbles yet again as 10 Dems join the Repubs in voting to confirm an anti-regulation, pro-fraud corporate lawyer and former Goldman gang member to run the SEC.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jay-clayton-securities-exchange-commission-goldman-sachs-trump_us_59079c58e4b05c3976817a8d?25&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
The Democratic version of political hardball is sponsored by Nerf.
A
neil
22
"Basically, the parliamentary Labour Party represents the voting public, and the Labour Party membership represent the historical Labour Party"
I'm not sure that is an accurate depiction.
The public certainly doesn't view Blair favorably.
And stepping back for the big picture, the Blairite Labour wouldn't be floundering in the wilderness if they were representing the voting public.
And that happened well before Corbyn was elected to lead them.
"Take your pick - the pure lefties of the membership, or the pragmatic lefties of the parliamentary Party."
Like with the Democrats, losing isn't pragmatic, and the pragmatic aren't really lefties.
:)
"Murdoch used the British press in the same way as Fox News - with one sided views and a lot of outright lies to try to swing enough of the populace to his right wing viewpoint."
I think the guy in the interview characterized the press in the UK as 80% right wing.
But I think it's very odd that I haven't seen a single mention of the 25 Conservative MP's being prosecuted for cheating in the last election on the BBC... or mainstream journalism about how that could be responsible for the snap election, or how that made it possible for the Brexit referendum in the first place...
...and for that matter why in the world Corbyn isn't using it as a campaign issue!!!
If 25 Republicans in Congress were facing prosecution, it would be news.
Do you have any idea what is going on with that?
"I'm not seeing leadership from the Labour Party that says: "elect us and we'll have a do over on the EU referendum" - maybe I'm missing that message"
I don't think you're missing it.
I think they're well aware that a sizable chunk of Labour voters support Brexit. As I understand it, it isn't a majority, but it puts them into a serious bind.
"Tony Blair looks and talks like the center of the British electorate (where the votes are) but has personal problems as a public figure"
Well, even though it was only a slight majority in favor of Brexit, it suggests Blair does not in fact represent the center.
Or, like a double bell curve with the trough in the center, maybe there aren't as many people in that center as there used to be?
If the policies Blair supported are being counted as part of his "personal problems" I would say he doesn't represent the center of the Labour electorate any longer. But my strong personal distaste for him could mean that is just wishful thinking.
I haven't forgotten your reservations about the British left (based on the history and valid, understandable reasons), but I am hoping Labour does better than the polling suggests and Corbyn is strengthened even if they don't win outright, that May loses her majority and has to form a coalition of the right, and that they are then held responsible for the consequences of Brexit because I think the consequences are going to be more severe and unpopular than expected judging by the approach that May wants to pursue.
I wouldn't mind seeing Scotland become independent even though that would weaken the left in the UK badly.
But I do worry about N. Ireland a bit. A return to violence there would be a terrible result.
A
So, to sum up, Tony Blair looks and talks like the center of the British electorate (where the votes are) but has personal problems as a public figure. Corbyn looks and feels like a return to the hard left
Overly-simplistic observation of the day:
So British politics is to American Politics as the DC Universe is to Marvel -
Blair = Obama
Corbyn = Sanders
Johnson = Trump (Nigel Farage = Roger Stone)
Richard Branson = Mark Cuban
Teresa May = Paul Ryan?
The analogies aren't perfect, and the costumes are all different, but the super powers are nearly equally matched in each group by someone in the other.
@balthasar,
i don't know, paul ryan and theresa may could look pretty similar in a dress...
;p
JL
and Elizabeth would like him - he is where Biden get's his speeches from ;)
That's not funny anymore ... because it's completely untrue.
Isn't it possible that a significant part of the fee is for what transpires, without transcript, off the record, in conversation with the senior officials of the sponsor?
Do these kind of fees curry favor? Yes. Are they paying tribute to power? Arguably. Are the optics damaging? Absolutely.
But from the standpoint of the sponsors, insights from the highest level into the personalities, thinking, and machinery of all branches of governance which make decisions that impact them, can be very valuable.
In the Cantor Fitz case, they're systemically important in the continuous rolling expansion of the US debt, and making market worldwide. In that, they are continuously exposed to political risks from congressional bills to jawboning. One insight from a consummate insider that exposes a risk they might now face is all that's needed to justify such a fee.
LB,
From the standpoint of the former president, how he is ultimately viewed by history will be impacted by what he actually has to say in his keynote address to this group.
However, we may never know what that is. But, that, in and of itself, will also have an impact - and not only on how history views Obama, by the way.
What are some of the lessons of the 2016 presidential campaign ... ??
Liz,
Obama and Trump share something with FDR and Reagan: their constituencies were founded on bedrock belief that the man would try to do the right things for what they stand for, and the other one wouldn't. Such political magic spurs the election, and persists through time in office, and beyond.
It's not at all certain that President Obama will carry this forward in personal standing or legacy. This is hardly the same as, say, his becoming a partner in the New York or Washington offices of Jones Day.
Isn't it possible that a significant part of the fee is for what transpires, without transcript, off the record, in conversation with the senior officials of the sponsor?
I've organized these types of events. I got Alan Greenspan to speak at an event I was running in the NYSE ($150K + expenses), Meredith Whitney (the lady who most accurately predicted the 2008 crisis) at another, Mark Zandi (Chief Economist at Moody's), Barry Ritholz, etc. etc.
You don't pay them for what they are going to say - you assume they have a mildly insightful, and somewhat amusing speech they trot out - you pay them because they draw in people you want to get access to. As far as the event itself, it is all about the Q&A then the VIP drinks afterwards, with a photographer on hand so you get something to put on the wall of your office. Popular venues are the Yale Club, the Harvard Club, the NYSE (the Old Dining Room followed by drinks on the floor after hours), etc.
Overly-simplistic observation of the day:
Yeah, but not a bad one ;)
Hey gang
“They are furious that Trump isn’t as effective or as willing to pretend that he’s not doing this. That means they can no longer pretend that the violence, the wars, the coercion, the interference, the dictator-support that they routinely condone has a moral purpose to it.”
A short excerpt from an article well worth reading.
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/02/trumps-support-and-praise-of-despots-is-central-to-the-u-s-tradition-not-a-deviation-from-it/
It's a harsh reality, but reality nonetheless.
A
Ya know, if you take Trump's 160 million he reported for a years income, divided it by 365 comes to $438,000 per day. Are you saying a day of Trump is more valuable than a day of Obama ;-)
A01
23
The resistance of the indivisible Democrats in Congress crumbles yet again as 10 Dems join the Repubs in voting to confirm an anti-regulation, pro-fraud corporate lawyer and former Goldman gang member to run the SEC.
The Democratic version of political hardball is sponsored by Nerf.
Princess Leia Organa: Why, you stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf herder!
Han Solo: Who's scruffy-looking?
So says the Resistance, Punk! ;)
Kick
Imperial troops have entered the base!
A
A01
Give the evacuation code signal... and get to your transports!
nypoet22 [1] -
I still think if there were transcripts then everyone could match Obama's words to his record. If they matched up, fine, but if they didn't, people would indeed call him on it, I think.
LizM [3] -
I really don't have a problem with Obama raking it in on the speaking circuit. I didn't even have a problem with Hillary doing so. I've paid to see people speak, I think the compensation is basically whatever the market will bear, and more power to them. I've never really seen Obama as a purist (he did raise those mountains of cash from Wall Street as a candidate, after all), but I would like to read a transcript of what he said to the fatcats, that's for sure. Something Hillary was too chicken to provide.
LizM [5] -
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, I think. The amount isn't all that unprecedented (look at how much the Clintons have made giving similar speeches). Presidents have been doing this since Reagan went to Japan immediately after leaving office to give a speech for a cool $2 million (or maybe that was GHW Bush? I'd have to look it up...).
It may be tone-deaf of Obama, I will agree with that point. And you're right, I'd love to see him give a Bernie-style "Medicare for all!" speech to them...
:-)
neilm [6] -
OK, that's an interesting argument -- commerical viability. I get what you're saying, about giving away the speech. I tried to address it in the article a little bit, but only from the perspective of the sponsors of the speech. You're right to take a look from the speaker's point of view (valuation of his speech and speeches to come).
But I think that's lazy, too. Not on your part, on the speaker's part. Are high-paid speakers akin to a band with one set list that tours giving essentially the same show every night in a different town, or should the sponsors of such speeches expect a Grateful Dead level of uniqueness (with a changing set list every night) type of speech, written just for them?
Personally, if I paid six figures for a speech, I'd want it to be one he hadn't given to anyone else previously. But maybe my standards are too high.
Still, I don't see this as a completely insurmountable problem for either speaker or sponsor. Perhaps the transcript could be delayed a month or so? And if ALL speech transcripts were released, then sponsors could see proof they had gotten a custom set list, as it were.
LizM [8] -
Just wanted to say that you are framing it in a "big picture" light -- that of Obama's overall legacy -- that I hadn't fully considered when writing this. In other words: "Hmmm... she makes a good point."
:-)
altohone [11] -
Good point about the lack of any prosecutions for the fiscal crash. Again, hadn't thought of that when writing this. But anyone who was paying attention in 2007 and 2008 could see Obama was piling up a gargantuan amount of cash from Wall Street. I didn't have very high expectations for him in this regard, in other words, and he pretty much did what I expected. I mean, maybe when he first came on the scene everyone was starry-eyed, but during the campaign he cast quite a few very questionable votes in the Senate (Clinton did too, in all fairness) that showed exactly how far his progressiveness went (answer: not very). So maybe my expectations for both his economic team and his presidential legacy were lowered a long time ago...
But you are right about forgetting to mention the lack of bankers being frogmarched to jail, I fully agree. Mea culpa, it was not intentional, just overlooked it.
But I do think you're overestimating the rage. Obama is now yesterday's news, as far as the Dem Party going forward is concerned. Now, if Bernie were giving a secret speech to Wall Street for $400K, I might agree about the level of rage...
Heh.
And I disagree with how a fire-breathing Obama speech would be seen, after a transcript was released. There's that whole "speaking truth to power" thing, and I think he'd come out smelling pretty rosy.
neilm [14] -
See my "set list / Grateful Dead" analogy, above. Why does it have to be the same speech over and over? Obama's a smart guy, and if I were paying that much to hear him speak, I'd want a brand-new speech written for the occasion. Wouldn't you?
LizM [15] -
Good point about Dodd/Frank. We won't know until it is used...
TheStig [21] -
$440 to see Hamilton? I'll wait for the (inevitable) movie...
As for quid pro quo, that's not likely seeing as how Obama will likely never have another government job (unless some Dem president appoints him to the Supreme Court, that is...).
To everyone:
OK, I'm feeling the heat on this one, but what about the argument: "Every other ex-president has cashed in, so why are people so upset the first black president is cashing in?"
I'm not sure I buy into that argument fully, but I'd be interested in hearing what people think about it. Hey, I'm white, so what do I know about the racial aspects of the fray?
neilm [22] and altohone [24] -
What chance do you think Ireland will reunite because NI wants to stick with the Euro? I mean, it's a longshot, but it has to be at least considered a possibility, at this point. Just curious...
altohone [23] -
The Democratic version of political hardball is sponsored by Nerf.
OK, now THAT was funny! "sponsored by Nerf..." heh... have to remember that one...
:-)
Balthasar [25] -
Jeff Sessions = evil leprechaun from the Simpsons...
Heh. Couldn't resist...
LeaningBlue [30] -
Now that is an excellent point. Especially when you consider FDR's family history, and his "I welcome their hatred" stance towards the elite Wall Street class he came from. Just had to say that: good point.
neilm [31] -
That is certainly an interesting perspective. Want to write a guest column from the point of view of how these speeches are normally done?
I've always personally wondered what exactly I would say to President Obama, if I were ever given one of those "meet and grip" occasions. I mean, the man would never remember me or what I had to say, since he's got so many other things on his mind.
It's quite common for anyone to meet a celebrity to become tongue-tied, and the world of politics is no different. I've met numerous politicians (mostly during Netroots Nation), including a personal idol of mine, Al Franken. He was hilarious and spent 5-10 minutes with me and my wife. But he'd never remember me, I'm positive of that.
If I had met Obama during his presidency, I probably would have asked him: "Since your Attorney General has the power to do so on his signature alone, why don't you direct him to reschedule marijuana -- a substance you admittedly enjoyed for years -- lower than Schedule I? You could impact millions of lives for the better, just by doing so."
But now that he's no longer president, I have no real idea what I'd say to him if I ever got a brief chance to meet him and shake his hand.
Anyone else? What would you ask Obama now, if you got 5 minutes with him backstage before one of these speeches?
BashiBazouk [34] -
Now that was REALLY funny! Heh.
Kick [35] -
Let's see... Star Wars quote... making fun of Dems...
Where's Michale? Did someone scare him off? That comment was like Michale-catnip, and no response???
OK, moving on to Tuesday's comments now...
-CW