One of the perks of being ex-president is unless everybody hated your stinking guts by the time your term ended, you can probably make a few bucks by writing a book and giving speeches.
Barack Obama is a hot commodity. How hot? Oh, about $60 million book deal for him and Michelle, and now a whopping $400,000 to give a speech to CantorFitzgerald at a health conference.
Some folks aren't too happy about it.
Sen. Bernie Sanders:
Former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) criticized former President Barack Obama during an interview Friday on “CBS This Morning” for allegedly agreeing to a massive payday for an upcoming Wall Street speech. According to reports, Obama has agreed to speak for $400,000 at a Wall Street health care conference in September, hosted by Cantor Fitzgerald LP.
Sanders, a vocal critic of Wall Street, often criticized former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton for delivering such speeches during the contentious 2016 Democratic primary.
The senator labeled Obama’s decision “unfortunate.”
“President Obama’s a friend of mine,” Sanders said. “I think he, as president, represented our country with integrity and intelligence, but I think at a time when people are so frustrated with the power of Wall Street and the big-money interests, I think it is unfortunate that President Obama is doing this.
“I would have hoped that the president would not have given a speech like this,” Sanders said.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren:
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she is “troubled” by former President Barack Obama’s decision to give a Wall Street speech for $400,000 this year.
An interview between Ms. Warren and Sirius XM’s “Alter Family Politics” on Thursday addressed Mr. Obama’s upcoming conference talk run by Cantor Fitzgerald LP. The Democrat likened the money he will make to “a snake that slithers through Washington” and “ultimately threatens democracy.”
“I was troubled by that,” the senator said while discussing “This is our Fight,” her new book. “One of the things I talk about in the book is the influence of money. I describe it as a snake that slithers through Washington. It shows up in so many in so many different ways here in Washington. You know, people understand […] the money that goes into campaign contributions. And when I say ‘understand,’ I don’t mean they think it’s OK — but at least people see it.”
Van Jones, CNN:
Former Obama adviser and CNN political analyst Van Jones suggested President Obama go on a “poverty tour” as a way to mitigate some of the criticism surrounding news he'll make $400,000 for a speech at a Wall Street firm's healthcare conference.
"We need a Bobby Kennedy in this country," Jones said in an interview on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday.
He suggested the former president "go to Appalachia, go to Native American reservations where they’re shoving these pipelines down their throats and they don’t even have clear, running water. Go to South Central, go to the Arizona border where you have a lot of poverty."
He noted that most recent presidents have made such paid remarks after leaving office, and said Obama "should not be the first president to have to be broke."
But, he added, "If he would do a poverty tour first, from a moral point of view, it would be great for him to do."
Ruth Marcus, Washington Post:
In collecting $400,000 from a Wall Street investment firm to make a single speech, Barack Obama is following in the Gucci-clad footsteps of past presidents. Ronald Reagan landed a $2 million speaking gig in Japan. George W. Bush, on his way out, announced it was time to “replenish the ol’ coffers.” Bill and Hillary Clinton reported making more than $235 million after leaving the White House.
But to acknowledge that Obama has plenty of precedent on his side is not to say that his choice is wise. Indeed, it’s unfortunate.
Obama’s propulsion onto the lecture circuit arrives at a moment of populist disgust with Wall Street greed and the Washington swamp (can doors revolve in swamps?). It comes after a campaign in which Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speaking fees became a symbol of entitled elitism. So imagine the powerful message Obama would have sent — the reverse precedent — had he chosen to renounce this road to riches.
Or, imagine this, had he chosen to speak publicly, at as many places and on as many topics as he liked. Just not behind closed doors, for an amount equivalent to his White House salary — and seven times what the typical household makes in a year. Such a move would have been understood as an implicit — and well-deserved — rebuke of the Clintons’ compulsive speechifying.
This is not to argue for a post-presidential vow of poverty. I don’t begrudge the Obamas their reported $60-million-plus joint book deal, of which their publisher has said a “significant portion” will be donated to charity. That should leave plenty for the Obamas to live as luxuriously as they could want.
Some readers will argue there is an unfair racial double standard in accepting that previous presidents have cashed in big time and demanding that Obama refrain from doing precisely what they have. “So the first black president must also be the first one to not take money afterwards?” Trevor Noah asked on “The Daily Show” Thursday. “No, no, no, no, no, my friend. He can’t be the first of everything.”
Hogwash. This isn’t about holding the black guy to a higher standard — it’s about trying to hold everyone to a higher standard. Times have changed, and what was once placidly accepted as post-presidential business-as-usual may no longer be.
A wise man once said, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” That was Obama 2010, on regulating Wall Street. Maybe Obama 2017 could talk to that guy.
--------
Here's my question. Just who the entire hell do Marcus, Jones, Warren and Sanders think they are and where do they get off trying to tell President Obama how much money he should make and what he should do with it?
If some group invites Liz Warren to speak to their group does she show up on her own dime? Is Bernie expected to book his own flight, hump his own bags, catch a cab to a Motel 6 he can flop at and pack a peanut butter-and-jelly sammich so he has something to nibble on?
Why is it unseemly for Obama to make money in his post-presidency? Why does it offend the ideologically purity of the ideologically purists? What makes these sanctimonious, busy-body senators, activists and journalists so holier-than-thou? Besides they believe they are divinely entitled to be that way?
This is what I call The Audacity of Dopes. What's in your wallet, Bernie? Get out of Obama's pocket and mind yer own business.
Barack Obama is a hot commodity. How hot? Oh, about $60 million book deal for him and Michelle, and now a whopping $400,000 to give a speech to CantorFitzgerald at a health conference.
Some folks aren't too happy about it.
Sen. Bernie Sanders:
Former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) criticized former President Barack Obama during an interview Friday on “CBS This Morning” for allegedly agreeing to a massive payday for an upcoming Wall Street speech. According to reports, Obama has agreed to speak for $400,000 at a Wall Street health care conference in September, hosted by Cantor Fitzgerald LP.
Sanders, a vocal critic of Wall Street, often criticized former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton for delivering such speeches during the contentious 2016 Democratic primary.
The senator labeled Obama’s decision “unfortunate.”
“President Obama’s a friend of mine,” Sanders said. “I think he, as president, represented our country with integrity and intelligence, but I think at a time when people are so frustrated with the power of Wall Street and the big-money interests, I think it is unfortunate that President Obama is doing this.
“I would have hoped that the president would not have given a speech like this,” Sanders said.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren:
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she is “troubled” by former President Barack Obama’s decision to give a Wall Street speech for $400,000 this year.
An interview between Ms. Warren and Sirius XM’s “Alter Family Politics” on Thursday addressed Mr. Obama’s upcoming conference talk run by Cantor Fitzgerald LP. The Democrat likened the money he will make to “a snake that slithers through Washington” and “ultimately threatens democracy.”
“I was troubled by that,” the senator said while discussing “This is our Fight,” her new book. “One of the things I talk about in the book is the influence of money. I describe it as a snake that slithers through Washington. It shows up in so many in so many different ways here in Washington. You know, people understand […] the money that goes into campaign contributions. And when I say ‘understand,’ I don’t mean they think it’s OK — but at least people see it.”
Van Jones, CNN:
Former Obama adviser and CNN political analyst Van Jones suggested President Obama go on a “poverty tour” as a way to mitigate some of the criticism surrounding news he'll make $400,000 for a speech at a Wall Street firm's healthcare conference.
"We need a Bobby Kennedy in this country," Jones said in an interview on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday.
He suggested the former president "go to Appalachia, go to Native American reservations where they’re shoving these pipelines down their throats and they don’t even have clear, running water. Go to South Central, go to the Arizona border where you have a lot of poverty."
He noted that most recent presidents have made such paid remarks after leaving office, and said Obama "should not be the first president to have to be broke."
But, he added, "If he would do a poverty tour first, from a moral point of view, it would be great for him to do."
Ruth Marcus, Washington Post:
In collecting $400,000 from a Wall Street investment firm to make a single speech, Barack Obama is following in the Gucci-clad footsteps of past presidents. Ronald Reagan landed a $2 million speaking gig in Japan. George W. Bush, on his way out, announced it was time to “replenish the ol’ coffers.” Bill and Hillary Clinton reported making more than $235 million after leaving the White House.
But to acknowledge that Obama has plenty of precedent on his side is not to say that his choice is wise. Indeed, it’s unfortunate.
Obama’s propulsion onto the lecture circuit arrives at a moment of populist disgust with Wall Street greed and the Washington swamp (can doors revolve in swamps?). It comes after a campaign in which Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speaking fees became a symbol of entitled elitism. So imagine the powerful message Obama would have sent — the reverse precedent — had he chosen to renounce this road to riches.
Or, imagine this, had he chosen to speak publicly, at as many places and on as many topics as he liked. Just not behind closed doors, for an amount equivalent to his White House salary — and seven times what the typical household makes in a year. Such a move would have been understood as an implicit — and well-deserved — rebuke of the Clintons’ compulsive speechifying.
This is not to argue for a post-presidential vow of poverty. I don’t begrudge the Obamas their reported $60-million-plus joint book deal, of which their publisher has said a “significant portion” will be donated to charity. That should leave plenty for the Obamas to live as luxuriously as they could want.
Some readers will argue there is an unfair racial double standard in accepting that previous presidents have cashed in big time and demanding that Obama refrain from doing precisely what they have. “So the first black president must also be the first one to not take money afterwards?” Trevor Noah asked on “The Daily Show” Thursday. “No, no, no, no, no, my friend. He can’t be the first of everything.”
Hogwash. This isn’t about holding the black guy to a higher standard — it’s about trying to hold everyone to a higher standard. Times have changed, and what was once placidly accepted as post-presidential business-as-usual may no longer be.
A wise man once said, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” That was Obama 2010, on regulating Wall Street. Maybe Obama 2017 could talk to that guy.
--------
Here's my question. Just who the entire hell do Marcus, Jones, Warren and Sanders think they are and where do they get off trying to tell President Obama how much money he should make and what he should do with it?
If some group invites Liz Warren to speak to their group does she show up on her own dime? Is Bernie expected to book his own flight, hump his own bags, catch a cab to a Motel 6 he can flop at and pack a peanut butter-and-jelly sammich so he has something to nibble on?
Why is it unseemly for Obama to make money in his post-presidency? Why does it offend the ideologically purity of the ideologically purists? What makes these sanctimonious, busy-body senators, activists and journalists so holier-than-thou? Besides they believe they are divinely entitled to be that way?
This is what I call The Audacity of Dopes. What's in your wallet, Bernie? Get out of Obama's pocket and mind yer own business.
Don't hate the playa. Hate the game.
