Barack Obama Accepting $400,000 in Wall Street Speech Fee is Depressing

[No Excuses]

10 minutes ago, Hersh said:

You have an opinion without know what Obama is going to say. 

 

My opinion has to do with the optics of it. 

 

We know that Hillary was hurt by her perceived coziness with Wall st. By proxy she likely hurt the effectiveness of the Dems message of reform as well.

 

What effect on public perception would the most influential Democrat accepting large sums of money from Wall Street have on the public perception of a Democratic Party many consider elitist and out of touch?

[AsburySkinsFan]

5 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

because too large a proportion of the population is too stupid to recognize that they are being played for stupid?

ok...i'll buy that.

Right, that's it. Keep telling yourself that and you'll keep losing elections.

It has been said over and over and over again that the Dems are more out of touch with the average American than Republican candidates. Oh yeah I know Trump is not "the every man" but hell if he doesn't tell them what they want to hear. There's a massive disconnect between the Left and anything outside of a city. That's a problem.

[dfitzo53]

I think part of the problem is that telling people what they want to hear passes for being in touch with them. 

[HOF44]

3 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

I think part of the problem is that telling people what they want to hear passes for being in touch with them. 

Damn straight. How's that wall coming??? And when do I get my coal mining job back?  

[mcsluggo]

25 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Right, that's it. Keep telling yourself that and you'll keep losing elections.

It has been said over and over and over again that the Dems are more out of touch with the average American than Republican candidates. Oh yeah I know Trump is not "the every man" but hell if he doesn't tell them what they want to hear. There's a massive disconnect between the Left and anything outside of a city. That's a problem.

 

funny.. I didn't run for office.   and still i lost

 

(we all did)

 

 

 

But that is neither here-nor-there....   you clearly don't get my SPECIFIC point in our personal back-and-forth within the vast discussion taking place in  this thread-- which is tiny little component of the overall political debate taking place for the heart of America.

 

 

so.. i will try ONE MORE TIME

 

Overall Tax burden (so overall level of spending) is an important issue, maybe even the MOST important issue.  We will call it "Issue A".    You can debate "Issue A" all over the damned place, and people do.  Lots and lots and lots of very good discussion.    However... that is not the issue WE were discussing.   How the tax burden (whatever it ends up being after a long intelligent discussion about "Issue A") is distributed amongst the population is another important issue:  we will call THAT "Issue B".   Perhaps "Issue B" is nowhere near as important as Issue A?  this might be true... .?  but.. it IS the issue WE were discussing.  In the very end, the two Issues are entwined in a mathematical equation, (Issue A is the denominator, Issue B is the numerator) so they are related.... but discussion of the two issues can be separated.  .... should be separated ....   Issue A and Issue B are separate issues.

 

except by people that don't really want to talk about "Issue B".    Ever.   Under any circumstances.  Ever.    

 

You know who doesn't ever want to talk about Issue B  ever?   Under any circumstances?  Ever?   people that pay a lower percentage of their income than other people.  Right now that is the very wealthy.   

 

Do you know who else doesn't ever want to talk about Issue B  ever?   Under any circumstances?  Ever?   A  whole lotta people that somehow ALWAYS lose sight of the nutshell with the Issue B bean under it whenever this discussion takes place.   Its a slight of hand.   But god-damn has it been successful!!

 

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

The GOP has a stronger connection to the average American because they don't have to align themselves with buttclown dank meme losers in Guy Fawkes masks.  Dems, however, have to deal with these folks straight-faced and still grin and bear it when they stage a walkout at the convention.  Sad!

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

25 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

I think part of the problem is that telling people what they want to hear passes for being in touch with them. 

Sure it is, doctors tell us what's good for our health but we don't listen to them, instead we line up for 30oz prime rib night.

What you're complaining about is that elections are marketing campaigns and nothing more.

 

[twa]

34 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

 

 

What effect on public perception would the most influential Democrat accepting large sums of money from Wall Street have on the public perception of a Democratic Party many consider elitist and out of touch?

 

But it is not really that much money to a man of his means.

[Hersh]

48 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

My opinion has to do with the optics of it. 

 

We know that Hillary was hurt by her perceived coziness with Wall st. By proxy she likely hurt the effectiveness of the Dems message of reform as well.

 

What effect on public perception would the most influential Democrat accepting large sums of money from Wall Street have on the public perception of a Democratic Party many consider elitist and out of touch?

 

You are comparing apples and oranges. Obama is never going to be a candidate again. Plus, it wasn't really the Wall Street speeches that hurt Hillary. The speeches were just part of a much broader narrative of being secretive thus not trusting her. 

 

I think you have a much stronger point focusing on current or aspiring politicians than a former politician giving a speech. Heck, if Obama gave a speech at Exxon mobile, do you think that would even register compared to his real environmental record?

[No Excuses]

2 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

You are comparing apples and oranges. Obama is never going to be a candidate again. Plus, it wasn't really the Wall Street speeches that hurt Hillary. The speeches were just part of a much prouder narrative of being secretive thus not trusting her. 

 

 

I think you are disconnecting the perception of the party with the perception of its leaders. 

 

The perception that Democrats are also a party of the elite and are two-faced when they speak up for the little man already exists. Obama, the most influential Democrat in the country, doing this only hardens that perception.

 

I think he has a responsibility in helping reform the image of the political movement he was a leader off. This stunt does the opposite. It tells me that the Dems are completely clueless about PR managing and issue framing. 

[JSSkinz]

I don't really get why anyone would have an issue with him taking this speaking engagement and getting paid well to do it.  He's talented, still young and being a great Orator is one of those talents.  He's not selling out because he's getting paid a large sum fo money to speak, this is his payoff from years of hard work. We're not talking about a guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he earned everything he has and now he can leverage those talents to set up his family for generations.

 

Becoming educated, honing your craft and being the best at something deserves a payoff, this is not a negative its the American dream and I'm glad he's getting these opportunities.

 

 

[Hersh]

6 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

 

I think you are disconnecting the perception of the party with the perception of its leaders. 

 

The perception that Democrats are also a party of the elite and are two-faced when they speak up for the little man already exists. Obama, the most influential Democrat in the country, doing this only hardens that perception.

 

I think he has a responsibility in helping reform the image of the political movement he was a leader off. This stunt does the opposite. It tells me that the Dems are completely clueless about PR managing and issue framing. 

 

You are massively prejudging what he is doing. You have no idea what he is going to say or what his future actions will be and projecting what you want him to do isn't a fair way to evaluate him. Furthermore, you are overestimating the importance within any party of former politicians. Again, you are seeking a form of political purity of Obama which isn't healthy. 

 

 

 

  

[PF Chang]

How would this thread look if Hillary Clinton was president from 2009-17 then later gave a $400K speech to Wall Street? People like Obama so they don't care. You give the benefit of the doubt to people you like and assume that those you don't like have bad intentions. 

[Burgold]

5 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

How would this thread look if Hillary Clinton was president from 2009-17 then later gave a $400K speech to Wall Street? People like Obama so they don't care. You give the benefit of the doubt to people you like and assume that those you don't like have bad intentions. 

It wouldn't change my opinion. You can look through my posting history. I've never criticized Bush, Clinton, or anyone else from collecting a speaking fee. In fact, if I really want to be difficult I'd say the last thing a former President should do is shut up. It's good for them to speak esp. when they are not beholden to lobbyists, money, and the need to be reelected.

 

Obama is now free to say whatever he wants without penalty. He really does know what's broken. He probably really has ideas that he would love implemented or sees profound holes that ought to be addressed. He's always had to be a little guarded before and think in terms of polls and party. Now, he can let loose if he chooses to. I figure that's a good thing.

[RansomthePasserby]

He's a good public speaker. People get PAID when they're good at what they do. E.g. professional athletes, musicians, actors, etc. 

 

Why is this a big deal?

[Dan T.]

52 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

The GOP has a stronger connection to the average American because they don't have to align themselves with buttclown dank meme losers in Guy Fawkes masks.  Dems, however, have to deal with these folks straight-faced and still grin and bear it when they stage a walkout at the convention.  Sad!

 

 

 

We all have our crosses to bear.

 

 

 

[PF Chang]

8 minutes ago, Burgold said:

It wouldn't change my opinion. You can look through my posting history. I've never criticized Bush, Clinton, or anyone else from collecting a speaking fee. In fact, if I really want to be difficult I'd say the last thing a former President should do is shut up. It's good for them to speak esp. when they are not beholden to lobbyists, money, and the need to be reelected.

 

Obama is now free to say whatever he wants without penalty. He really does know what's broken. He probably really has ideas that he would love implemented or sees profound holes that ought to be addressed. He's always had to be a little guarded before and think in terms of polls and party. Now, he can let loose if he chooses to. I figure that's a good thing.

 

This doesn't bother me personally either but I do think No Excuses has a point with the optics.

 

I think there would be more people chiming in negatively if it were Hillary instead of Obama. Probably some of the same people who are OK with it now wouldn't be if it was about her, even if the situations were otherwise identical. 

[Gamebreaker]

Dems(not myself since I'm an Independent), should be far more concerned with who else is getting paid by Wall Street and if one of them is one of their up and comers. Politicians like Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris would be far more of a worry for their party. I also think this much concern of what Obama is doing, and not focusing on their next candidates is a problem. 

[PeterMP]

3 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

 

This doesn't bother me personally either but I do think No Excuses has a point with the optics.

 

I think there would be more people chiming in negatively if it were Hillary instead of Obama. Probably some of the same people who are OK with it now wouldn't be if it was about her, even if the situations were otherwise identical. 

 

I do think the optics are bad, especially this close to leaving office.  It certainly sets the possibility of their being pro quid quo in place while you are in office.  I doubt it is pay back for anything done while he was in officer, but I can certainly see why it would be perceived potentially that way.

[twa]

5 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

 

This doesn't bother me personally either but I do think No Excuses has a point with the optics.

 

I think there would be more people chiming in negatively if it were Hillary instead of Obama. Probably some of the same people who are OK with it now wouldn't be if it was about her, even if the situations were otherwise identical. 

 

Or if it were Trump , then they would say it is a quid pro quo deal....which is no excuses point more or less.

 

[Burgold]

I really don't think it is an issue of bad optics except for people who want to find something to be grumpy about. There's a bunch wrong with the financial system. That makes them good people to talk to. The fact that they are open to him is also (potentially) good. 

 

In other words, I would rather Obama try to talk and influence bankers and Wall Street traders than I would a Pokemon Club. Where is he going to get bang for his buck. Where can he make a difference.

 

Now, if it turns out he's collecting this money to deliver a speech they wrote I'll jump on your bandwagon (or the bandwagon of those who think he's now a sell out) but I just think this is much ado about nothing. I never complained about the cost of the taxpayer paying for Obama's trips to Hawaii or golfing when he was President. I never complained about Bush's golfing excursions or trips to Kennebunkport (sp). That's part and parcel, right? 

We get so upset about the distractions that we forget the issues. The outrage over Obama collecting speaking fees feels like a diversion to me. I have no doubt that No Excuses is sincere about his misgivings and disappointment. I just think that if we're choosing arrows from our quiver we should fire at a target worth hitting.

[Hersh]

Just now, twa said:

 

Or if it were Trump , then they would say it is a quid pro quo deal....which is no excuses point more or less.

 

If it was Trump, it would have to be quid pro quo because who would pay that much money to hear THAT guy give a speech?

[Burgold]

2 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Or if it were Trump , then they would say it is a quid pro quo deal....which is no excuses point more or less.

 

Nah, Trump's doing this WHILE in office. I do feel ill at ease with that. Call me a hypocrite if you like.

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

I really don't think it is an issue of bad optics except for people who want to find something to be grumpy about.

I think that describes 70+ percent of Americans right now.

[Burgold]

Just now, Kilmer17 said:

I think that describes 70+ percent of Americans right now.

You've made me "like" at least two of your posts today. Stop it. We can't be seen agreeing!!!

 

Think of the optics.