We keep hearing about the speaking fees. Bernie and his Bros have picked up on this and Bernie has spoken about this in debates.
To be sure the issue of her speaking fees is something that was pushed by GOP opposition research initially so Bernie and his Bros have co-opted that.
What has always been striking to me is how Hillary is attacked for doing things that everyone else in her position does.
She has been dogged with endless talk about her using private email. The fact is that most government officials have used private email. The GOP candidates who have been in government have done as have her predecessors at the State Department.
Whether or not the use of private emails by government officials is a big problem or not, she is far from the only government official who has done it. Yet only her use has been blown out of proportion to this extent.
Indeed, she got a recent lift with the FBI targeting also the emails of Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice.
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/colin-powell-says-hillary-clintons-email-is-a-non-issue/23756/
All the time she is portrayed as 'power mad' just because she has the normal ambition of any politician who seeks the Presidency.
So when discussing her speaking fees, it's important to keep this history in context. In any case, some video of her speech at Goldman Sachs has surfaced and there's no nefarious plot to deregulate Wall St. and do whatever the banks want.
"With Hillary Clinton now being singled out for having given the same kind of paid speeches during her time out of office that all politicians have generally given when they’ve had career gaps their own, curiosity has arisen as to just what Clinton was telling entities like Goldman Sachs during these speeches. There’s no longer any need to wonder, because video footage has surfaced. As it turns out, Hillary was speaking to Wall Street to try to make the case for gender equity in the business world."
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/when-hillary-clinton-gave-a-speech-to-goldman-sachs-the-topic-was-female-entrepreneurship/23763/comment-page-1/#comment-36910
To be sure the issue of her speaking fees is something that was pushed by GOP opposition research initially so Bernie and his Bros have co-opted that.
What has always been striking to me is how Hillary is attacked for doing things that everyone else in her position does.
She has been dogged with endless talk about her using private email. The fact is that most government officials have used private email. The GOP candidates who have been in government have done as have her predecessors at the State Department.
Whether or not the use of private emails by government officials is a big problem or not, she is far from the only government official who has done it. Yet only her use has been blown out of proportion to this extent.
Indeed, she got a recent lift with the FBI targeting also the emails of Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice.
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/colin-powell-says-hillary-clintons-email-is-a-non-issue/23756/
All the time she is portrayed as 'power mad' just because she has the normal ambition of any politician who seeks the Presidency.
So when discussing her speaking fees, it's important to keep this history in context. In any case, some video of her speech at Goldman Sachs has surfaced and there's no nefarious plot to deregulate Wall St. and do whatever the banks want.
"With Hillary Clinton now being singled out for having given the same kind of paid speeches during her time out of office that all politicians have generally given when they’ve had career gaps their own, curiosity has arisen as to just what Clinton was telling entities like Goldman Sachs during these speeches. There’s no longer any need to wonder, because video footage has surfaced. As it turns out, Hillary was speaking to Wall Street to try to make the case for gender equity in the business world."
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/when-hillary-clinton-gave-a-speech-to-goldman-sachs-the-topic-was-female-entrepreneurship/23763/comment-page-1/#comment-36910
It's very typical for ex public officials to take speaking fees. By the way many other groups of people with knowledge and experience give such speeches. Giving a paid speech doesn't prove you are an evil person with nefarious intentions.
The context of the speech was actual a woman's forum. So it was not about how to deregulate Wall St. but actually about something that is positive. Pushing for more women in positions of power and issues of importance for women.
In another speech she gave in 2004 to financial donors she told them straight out that in the public good, their taxes would have to go up. And of course, many rich folks are actually liberals.
Those who talk about FDR forget that he was a patrician who came from a family as close to American aristocracy as you get.
"Senator Clinton voted against the two major tax cuts packages introduced by President Bush, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001and theJobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003,[48] saying it was fiscally irresponsible to reopen the budget deficit. At the 2000 Democratic National Convention, Clinton had called for maintaining a budget surplus to pay down the national debt for future generations. At a fundraiser in 2004, she told a crowd of financial donors that "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you" but that "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-wall-st-journal-bashes-hillary-for.html
P.S. Incidentally-but related to the topic in this piece-there is an episode on the ABC series Scandal that is about: a First Lady who wants to run for Senate while her husband is still President.
Look, the Hillary haters will never admit their problem with her is gender. But anyone who is saying that sexism is not a big deal anymore and that at least a good deal of the opposition to HRC is gender based are fooling themselves.
The context of the speech was actual a woman's forum. So it was not about how to deregulate Wall St. but actually about something that is positive. Pushing for more women in positions of power and issues of importance for women.
In another speech she gave in 2004 to financial donors she told them straight out that in the public good, their taxes would have to go up. And of course, many rich folks are actually liberals.
Those who talk about FDR forget that he was a patrician who came from a family as close to American aristocracy as you get.
"Senator Clinton voted against the two major tax cuts packages introduced by President Bush, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001and theJobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003,[48] saying it was fiscally irresponsible to reopen the budget deficit. At the 2000 Democratic National Convention, Clinton had called for maintaining a budget surplus to pay down the national debt for future generations. At a fundraiser in 2004, she told a crowd of financial donors that "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you" but that "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-wall-st-journal-bashes-hillary-for.html
P.S. Incidentally-but related to the topic in this piece-there is an episode on the ABC series Scandal that is about: a First Lady who wants to run for Senate while her husband is still President.
Look, the Hillary haters will never admit their problem with her is gender. But anyone who is saying that sexism is not a big deal anymore and that at least a good deal of the opposition to HRC is gender based are fooling themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment