Plan B Forum

Obama's $400,000 Wall Street speaking fee will undermine everything he believes in
To fight the rising tide of populism, mainstream leaders need to raise their ethical game.
Updated by Matthew Yglesias@mattyglesiasmatt@vox.com Apr 25, 2017, 11:00am EDT

Former President Barack Obama's decision to accept a $400,000 fee to speak at a health care conference organized by the bond firm Cantor Fitzgerald is easily understood. That's so much cash, for so little work, that it would be extraordinarily difficult for anyone to turn it down. And the precedent established by former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, to say nothing of former Federal Reserve Chairs Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan and a slew of other high-ranking former officials, is that there is nothing wrong with taking the money.

Indeed, to not take the money might be a problem for someone in Obama's position. It would set a precedent.

Obama would be suggesting that for an economically comfortable high-ranking former government official to be out there doing paid speaking gigs would be corrupt, sleazy, or both. He'd be looking down his nose at the other corrupt, sleazy former high-ranking government officials and making enemies.

Which is exactly why he should have turned down the gig.

"... Change we can believe in

In an unpaid speaking appearance earlier this week at the University of Chicago, Obama demonstrated his enduring faith in both the American people and his brand of politics. He explained that the progressive views of younger Americans give him hope and that he wants to make it the primary mission of his post-presidency to break down the barriers that dissuade young people from participating in political life.

It's a fine vision, one that successfully walks the line between post-presidential high-mindedness and partisan politics.

Obama should take seriously the message it sends to those young people if he decides to make a career out of buckraking. He knows that Hillary Clinton isn't popular with the youth cohort the way he is. And he knows that populists on both the left and the right want to make a sweeping ideological critique of all center-left politics, not just a narrow personal one of Clinton. Does Obama want them to win that battle and carry the day with the message that mainstream politics is just a moneymaking hustle?

Of course, it's just one speech. Nothing is irrevocable about one speech. But money doesn't get any easier to turn down with time, any more than rebuking friends and colleagues gets easier. To make his post-presidency a success, Obama should give this money to some good cause and then swear off these gigs entirely. ... "

It looks like he's joining the celebrity elites lifestyle. Not what I'd expected and I'm disappointed this is the path he's choosing.

Lord Jim wrote: I never considered Obama to be somehow "purer" or "better" than the average politician, (I never saw any evidence that would lead me to believe that to be the case.)

in fact I find you refreshingly honest..., comparered to one person here, who shall go un named..., we ll just call him...., white RINO....

• For those who got worked up over Obama's $400,000 speaking fee, congratulations - you were played by the Right Wing media yet again.
  
  Courtesy of Washington Monthly:
  

  • When it comes to the story about Obama accepting speaking fees, it is important to note that the story was launched by Fox Business News. All of the sudden what previous presidents – both Democrat and Republican – had been doing for years was scandalized because we’re now talking about Obama. Our current so-called “populist” president once even bragged at a rally that he used to be paid a lot of money for speeches (as much as $1.5 million for a single speech).
    
    Of course the folks at Fox knew this would trigger a dust-up on the left because of the fact that Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees had become such an issue in the 2016 primary. And of course, an awful lot of liberals took the bait.
    
    I’m not saying that all of the arguments about speaking fees are without merit. Perhaps Democrats should have a proactive conversation about whether former presidents should continue to do so. But taking the bait Fox served up and using it to suggest that a particular former Democratic president is threatening our democracy is akin to the kind of circular firing squad for which Democrats have been famous over the years.

  
  The article goes on to point out that before there was ever any mention of this speech that the former President had already spoken, for free, to young people in Chicago about gang violence, job skills, and employment opportunities.
  
  Also from the article:
  

  • For the people who think that accepting fees for a speech indicates an erosion of our democracy, they should at least acknowledge that former President Obama is actually spending the majority of his time working with young people on civic engagement as well as reducing violence, poverty and unemployment around the country. Otherwise they are simply getting played by Fox News.

  
  
  Personally I found it troubling that both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders allowed themselves to get played by Fox News.
  
  Warren said she was "troubled" by this news, however Sanders went much farther saying he found it "distasteful."
  
  Do you know what I find distasteful, so called "liberal leaders" who allow the conservative media to pull their strings so effectively.
  
  Remember this is the same thing the Russians did to split the Democrats during the primary, and to convince the so-called "Bernie Bros" that the nomination was stolen from their candidate, which led to many of them skipping the general election in frustration.
  
  A bit of information that was tragically under reported about this so-called Wall Street speaking engagement is that the speech is being given at a health care conference.
  
  How could we possibly expect the President who passed such an expansive health care reform, which was not in such danger of being undermined or repealed, NOT to show up something like that?
  
  No the criticism directed at President Obama concerning this speech is completely unwarranted, and worse yet it is another indication that even the liberals are easily led around by the nose.

Scooter wrote:It only becomes a wedge if they choose to make it so through their reaction to it. Obama is no longer in office and thus is no longer in any position to allow any speaking fees he receives to influence government policy. Any debate on the "appropriateness" of receiving such fees should end there.