Posted on 01/26/2016 3:51:52 PM PST by Kaslin
When Bernie Sanders hits rival Hillary Clinton for taking humongous speaking fees from big banks -- notably the $675,000 Goldman Sachs paid her for three speeches while she eyed the Oval Office -- he struck Clinton's Achilles heel. Both the former secretary of state and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have cashed in since they left the White House in 2000. The New York Times reported last year that the Clintons earned $139 million from 2007 to 2014. The Clintons' focus on accumulating wealth clouds their judgment.
Start with a basic political fact: Many voters believe Wall Street got off too painlessly for its role in the financial collapse of 2008. Many Democrats blame big banks. So if you know you are going to run for president in the Democratic primary, you probably don't want financial giants paying you five times the American median household income for one speech. It makes you look beholden to fat cats, because -- earth to Hillary -- most human beings are grateful when someone gives them six figures for a talk.
"You don't think they expect anything in return?" "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd asked Clinton on Sunday. "Absolutely not," Clinton answered. She said she took on the big banks as a U.S. senator.
A 2013 Politico story paints a different picture. After questioning attendees of a Clinton Goldman Sachs speech, Politico reported, "What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn't going to improve the economy -- it needs to stop."
Now, I happen to agree with the sentiment that Washington should work with Wall Street to promulgate regulations that protect the public without hampering commerce. But her acceptance of Wall Street money taints any concession she might make to financial markets. You know her sympathy lies with plutocrats when she told Diane Sawyer two years ago that Bill Clinton and she left the White House "dead broke."
Democratic primary voters want a nominee who understands the hurdles they face. It's hard to think Clinton understands problems of the middle class when in 2014 as she was crisscrossing the country taking on "income inequality," she charged UCLA $300,000 for a speech. (A private endowment paid the tab with funds that, I assume, otherwise would benefit students. Team Clinton explained $300,000 was her special "university rate." Goldman Sachs paid less.)
Defenders are free to mention Republican ex-presidents who charged hefty speaking fees. George W. Bush reportedly fetches $100,000 to $175,000 for a speech. Clinton, however, breaks the mold by cashing in before winning the Oval Office. Check writers are looking ahead, not behind, with a reasonable expectation of friendly treatment.
Clinton also charged a University of Nevada at Las Vegas endowment $225,000 for a 2014 speech. I keep wondering whether she thought of speaking at public universities free of charge -- maybe because she believes in higher education. And because she wants to fight income inequality. But first, she takes care of No. 1.
Follow the money.
Whatever one thinks of Sander’s policies, it’s clear the Democratic party base feels the same way regarding their party elites as we do
That pic is frightening!
Some woman must have walked into the room topless.
The Clintons are just awful people. Period.
She will be downright scary after being in jail and not having her hair and makeup and botox done.
I’ll bet the money she got from foreign enemies for selling classified information made the speaking fees look like peanuts.
But they have hidden that better, e.g., donations to a Canadian nonprofit, then laundered through to the Clinton Foundation, and then out to Bill, Hillary, Chelsea and assorted cronies as salaries.
It doesn’t matter how much money she has stolen, she will always be white trash
Dirty filthy Payola bribe money — and tons of it too. She’s sold out to do many special interests she couldn’t possibly be a president of all the people ( or even many of us at all). I guess if you’ve given her $225,000 and told her you’ll give her even more - turn she’ll be “your president” ( but I wouldn’t trust her even then-—). As for the rest of us, forget it. (I’m reminded of when pelosi was speaker I wrote her a respectful, carefully- researched letter about a pending bill — and didn’t get even a form letter back. So I called and her staff said she said not to waste time answering any correspondence unless the authors have contributed $$ to her — so much for representation or public service. Hillary sounds like she’s in it for the money too ...)
But you see, EVERYBODY on the planet knows Clinton is “For Sale”.
But.
They also know EVERYBODY ELSE knows she is “For Sale” and has no loyalty nor morals. So, once sold, she will not “stay bought”, but remain up for sale to the next bidder with a higher price. That makes buying her a problem if you want to play a long-term game. (Better to make money, or sell influence, or get the political decision quick!)
Second. Because she is reliably for, the bidders do not know who had access to her hole last, and do not know how much was paid for her last hole. This makes coordinating common payoff’s difficult, which is also inefficient for those making the payoffs: If they knew who was approaching her with what bids, the bidders could coordinate and combine their money - but then Hillary would get less.
But, since she has no one person coordinating where she puts the money into what holes, there can be no long-term well-planned campaign either.
(So, better to bid high now, rather than wait for even a few moths to pay later. The price will never go down: In the mid-90’s, access to the White House for anybody doing business to the federal government (even Indians approaching the Indian Bureau) had to pay up Hillary’s $100,000.00 fee (er, donation) to the Clinton Library.)
She has no morals, no ethics at all. So, ANY decision can be nought. (er, bought.)
Her arrogance will do her in... eventually.
“I’m above the law!”
“I’m the smartest person around!”
Will Hillary still get Secret Service protection in womens prison?
They can stand guard outside her cell while she breaks in the fresh fish.
Yes it will. We just have to be patient, which is very hard though.
I know, but I had to post it.
“”That pic is frightening!””
I’ve been around for a long, long time and I have never seen pictures of any other person making so many different faces. At every word she hears, she has a face for it and don’t forget the googly eyes!!! There is a message behind those faces and those eyes....”You found me out and I don’t like that.”
There's some truth to what you're saying... we do have some overlap with Sanders... but NOT with any of Hillary's 'base'.
There's some truth to what you're saying... we do have some overlap with Sanders... but NOT with any of Hillary's 'base'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.