Bernie Sanders Doubles Down On Critique of Hillary Clinton's Speaking Fees
Source: ABC NEWS
During a one-on-one interview with ABC News today in Columbia, South Carolina, Bernie Sanders stood by and escalated his attacks on Hillary Clinton over her taking speaking fees from corporate banks.
The Vermont senator had just finished arguing he was not into personal attacks and mean-spirited attacks. When challenged about whether bringing up Clintons speaking fees at the debate constituted personal attacks, Sanders replied: Well, I think it is a fact. A fact. Anyone disagree with me? She has received $600,000 in one year as speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. If thats not true, I will apologize. Its true.
The past few weeks have been the most combative yet in the tightening Democratic race, and Sunday nights NBC debate was no exception. Sanders and Clinton, now neck-and-neck in early voting states, tangled over health care policy, taxes and Wall Street reform. Sanders showed no hesitation to hit his opponent for being too cozy with the big banks, and today the progressive superstar said he was not nervous that the battle for the nomination was getting too negative. He stood by his campaigns heated rhetoric.
If you look at all that the Republican debate, I would think it was not very personal at all. I think what I have been trying to do, the point that I made last night, was I cant walk down the street, as you all know, without media saying, you know, criticize Hillary Clinton, say something terrible about Hillary Clinton. Its not my style of politics. What I have tried to do from day one is to run an issue-oriented campaign, and the reason to run is to show the differences of opinion -- you know, you have different opinions. Hillary Clinton and I have different opinions. Its called democracy. But Im not into personal attacks and mean-spirited attacks, he said.
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-doubles-critique-hillary-clintons-speaking-fees/story?id=36364560
Renew Deal
(81,869 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)When national leaders are beholden to mega-banks, it is unlikely that food on the table will be a concern.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Shows she has to answer to those that gave her the funding. Doesn't look good for keeping a roof over people's heads and their tables. She'll be spending money bailing out the banksters again rather than the people. Hell, she even said she thought the foreclosures were the people's own fault.
That is certainly something that will make a difference in people's lives.
.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)They STILL don't get it.
Maybe he's a bit jealous. I can't imagine anyone shelling out money to here BS speak.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)global1
(25,265 posts)and demand that she release transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs or for that matter any Wall Street firm she's given speeches at for a fee.
Whether that demand comes from Bernie himself or from We the People it should put her in a very uncomfortable position trying to explain her way out - kind of a damned if you do - damned if you don't.
I'm really surprised that a request like this hasn't come up sooner. As a person considering her for the top job in this country - I want to know what she says to the Bankster's and the top 1%ers. Is she telling them anything different than she is telling us?
Don't you think even her avid supporters would want to know what she said?
antigop
(12,778 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)She's not going to win.
Akicita
(1,196 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)We need to see those transcripts.
.
Kall
(615 posts)Some people wonder what kind of gifted speech maker Hillary Clinton is (which has been absent from public view) or what expertise on high finance she had to impart, that would justify an economic value of $300,000 per hour to Wall Street banks, since no influence changed hands.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)It it a completely fair request. If refused looks very bad, too. Like Mitt's 47%
cannabis_flower
(3,765 posts)or an undercover waiter.
I want to see what a Quarter Million Dollar Speech looks like.
DirtyHippyBastard
(217 posts)I think I saw some DVDs for a few payments of $59.99 plus shipping on the telly. I'm pretty sure it was her. Can't remember the phone number though.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)Seems like a conflict of interest if GS has dealings abroad, which it does
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)videos or the transcripts of the speeches. Full disclosure.
I would like to know what Hillary was saying to the bankers that caused them to bring her back to speak again after the first banker-speech.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)> Don't you think even her avid supporters would want to know what she said?
Many of her most avid supporters were at those events ... they already know
the truth ...
HomerRamone
(1,112 posts)Or are they buying SOMETHING ELSE?
tecelote
(5,122 posts)If Hillary wins, watch her take a hard right turn.
It's what she's being paid to do.
Her recent lean left is pandering to make us think she works for us so she can get elected.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)It's not like this is something the public hasn't noticed, or likely to be ignored by Republicans.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2311
And now this: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/search-releases/search-results/release-detail?ReleaseID=2314&What=&strArea=;&strTime=3
People trust Sanders, more than other politicians, to be honest.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)GO BERNIE!
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)CUT IT OUT!
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)malokvale77
(4,879 posts)cannabis_flower
(3,765 posts)If she doesn't get enough political donations she can always use her own money (that she got from Goldman Sacks) to do whatever she wants with it, including donating it to her own campaign.
Cartoonist
(7,321 posts)Speaking fees go right into her pocket. Political donations can only be used for campaign expenses.
In any case, she gets both kinds. Bernie gets neither. He gives low cost speech fees to charity.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Some are........... and some aren't.
However your shitty comment on Sander's age reeks.
Sam1
(498 posts)bridge I'll sell you on a quite claim deed.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)for the money. They just appreciate a really good speech.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)If you had wanted to have Bush41 come speak when he was more healthy, it cost a couple hundred thou. That's standard for someone who's world-famous like that. Obama will earn about the same. Of course, most people know this; Sanders' attack is only impressive to people who don't know any better.
global1
(25,265 posts)give a pass. But someone that is a current office holder or known to wind up being a candidate for the presidency smacks of being a payoff; a conflict of interest. And given what we know about these firms that are too big and getting bigger to fail - I don't trust them or those seeking an office to think either is doing this for We The People.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)They were definitely exploiting the fact of having been President, but when a candidate for President makes so much money for so many speeches, questions arise as to where loyalties ultimately lie.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)their corporations pay ridiculously high fees for a nice speech in return.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Criticize Sanders with a comment on his age! Excellent! You have revealed much about the way you think.
Hillary is a spring chicken comparatively. Puhlease!
As Cartoonist said. Speaking fees are worse.
Personally, I'd pay her not to speak.
coyote
(1,561 posts)Me thinks. LOL!
ohnoyoudidnt
(1,858 posts)That tells me enough.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)nothing in return. Please.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)and entirely justified.
BadGimp
(4,017 posts)They expect something in return..
UpInArms
(51,284 posts)You Got to Dance with Them What Brung You brings together a first-class collection of smart, spirited, and fiercely funny writings. From the wild and woolly politics of her native Texas to the waffling in the Oval Office, Molly exposes the fatuous and hypocritical at all levels of public life. Whether she's writing about the 1996 presidential candidates ("Dole contributed perhaps the funniest line of the year with his immortal observation that tobacco is not addictive but that too much milk might be bad for us. The check from the dairy lobby must have been late that week" , conspiracy theorists ("Twenty-five years in the newspaper bidness have given me a fairly strong faith in the proposition that if you haven't read about it in The Daily Disappointment or seen it on the network news, it's probably not true" , or cultural trends ("I saw a restaurant in Seattle that specialized in latte and barbecue. Barbecue and latte. I came home immediately" , Molly takes on the issues of the day with her trademark good sense and inimitable wit.
"I can think of few causes more important than keeping free voices alive in a world of corporate media," Molly writes. She is one of those voices and a national treasure; as the Los Angeles Times put it, she is "H. L. Mencken without the cruelty, Will Rogers with an agenda." Whatever your political persuasion, you're bound to agree that Molly Ivins is one of the sharpest and most original commentators on the American scene today. - See more at: http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/102566-1/Molly+Ivins.aspx#sthash.nPfqQaEj.dpuf
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Another of her favorite sayings was given to her by someone commenting on the Texas Legislature, one of her most fertile fields for harvesting humorous anecdotes. This is from memory, so I may not have it exactly right, but it was some advice for those running for the legislature. "You got to be able to drink their whiskey, screw their women, take their money, then stand up on the floor of the legislature and vote against them." Of course, no politician is capable of doing that all the time, because, as Molly says, "You got to dance with them that brung you."
UpInArms
(51,284 posts)just to read her columns
the world lost such an important voice
am so sad she left us
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)Ho hum.
ohnoyoudidnt
(1,858 posts)But nothing to see here. Let's move on.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)6000eliot
(5,643 posts)coyote
(1,561 posts)What possible conflict of interest could there be while talking tough on the bank industry and stuffing your back pocket with 600k. LOL!!!
I want to live in your fairyland.
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)Bradical79
(4,490 posts)I understand though, it is pretty difficult to defend the indefensible.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Famous people get outsize speaking fees, film at 11. Of course, a little research would have revealed that this is not unusual for world figures. I'm sure they're all in the controversy. Jimmy Carter charges similar amounts, up to $300k depending on who wants to book him. Naturally firms like banks etc. have to pay more than nonprofit groups. Gonna tell us how Jimmy Carter is also part of the corporate conspiracy?
http://www.celebritytalent.net/sampletalent/2753/president-jimmy-carter/
ohnoyoudidnt
(1,858 posts)in a very strong position to influence legislation for the entity you are accepting money from.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)'with special guest Hillary Clinton!' is the status symbol you pay for. It's not often you get the chance to meet world leaders face to face. It's the sort of thing you use to attract people to your finance conference or whatever the event is. I worry about lobbying but not really about speaker fees, at all. Celebrities charge a lot of money to turn up on demand, not least to function as a filter on the thousands of requests they receive.
ohnoyoudidnt
(1,858 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 20, 2016, 11:18 PM - Edit history (1)
If they thought she would be a threat to their bottom line, I doubt they would pay her 600k. If they thought she would attract people for them, then there may be more to it than her being famous. I suspect bankers like her for other reasons than just being well known. But that's just me. Given their history, I very skeptical of the actions and motives of big banks.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)I'm not sure I follow how direct payments to a politician's personal wealth is less concerning than lobbying activity or campaign contributions, though in Clinton's case she has a problem in that area as well.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)But we know about these fees and the fact that puppets must dance to the puppetmasters tune. The Clintons didn't make it to the 1% rank with Bill's presidency and helping poor people around the world.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Those are the best responses. That's how bad of an issue this is for us. It's frustrating the level of political corruption some of our fellow Democrats will desperately defend, but I guess there will always be a defense force for everything.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)It's an indefensible thing. I think it's perfectly valid to question a politician on where they are getting money from and how that might affect their decision making/policies.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)All Day. Every Day.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Everything is a conspiracy to you guys, even though these speaking fees are actually pretty normal for someone so famous. Carter charges the same sort of fees and so will Obama after he retires. Well-informed adults already know this quite well.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)She's gonna get those Banksters to "Cut it out" right after they cut that check... and YOU"RE the "adult"....
wordpix
(18,652 posts)Carter got high fees after he was pres and never ran for office again. Any promises he made to donors weren't about his sway as a high ranking official
global1
(25,265 posts)YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)Are those speeches available to the public? I'd love to read what $600 thou buys you. I'm sure she chastised everyone of them for being crooks and they belonged in federal prison.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)But I am sure some day she too can cash an obscene check for a few hours work.