So here's somebody who's been well-connected for years and at least until recently was believed to be a shoo-in for the Dem nomination. And, considering the weirdness of the GOP lineup, this person is also a strong contender to win the general election and become president. Why wouldn't the big money people want to establish a cozy relationship with this person? Invite them to give a speech to your executives, with a nice meet-and-greet session afterwards. The content of the speech could be just about anything; it's not the speech, it's the face time that matters. Then you give the speaker a nice fat honorarium, which, of course, is not counted as a campaign contribution. It's as corrupt as hell. The banksters are paying for future influence.

I am proud and happy about Hillary success as a smart, intelligent woman.

and economists, etc who are women who have equal depth of thinking. If they are even invited to speak, you can be sure it'd be for far, far less $. But then, they don't have nearly the political influence.

For her knowledge, experience, and, yeah, her celebrity.

You know, almost all presidents and their people make money for books and speeaches after their terms. Heck, some of the candidates on the GOP side are probably running just to raise their speaking fees.

Where have you been?

Not just because she's smart.

She must give a bang-up speech behind closed doors. Too bad she hasn't shared all that eloquence with the voting public.

that no one has ever heard of.

Was it "evil" when Bernie Sanders hosted and gave speeches--over and over and over again over the last several years--at luxury resorts...? To those "evil banksters" who comprised at least a quarter of the attendees? Or is that OK "because Bernie?"

I'm sure these wealthy donors love having their picture taken with him and the other speakers, too. This, apparently, is what rich people do for amusement.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/

They're all doing it. Some are just not advertising or admitting it.

"Puhleeze" what?

You're not aware that she's famous?

You're not aware that she's admired?


That she's led the "most admired" poll for twenty years, now?

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/264292-poll-clinton-is-americas-most-admired-woman

If I had money to burn, and I could attend an expensive soiree listening to someone that no one ever heard of, or listening to someone who is famous, admired, and has held a very important position on the WORLD stage, I know which shindig I'd attend.

Puhleeze.....just because YOU hate her, doesn't mean everyone does. You're not the arbiter, here!

compensated, behind-closed-doors speeches. Worlds of very obvious difference. Nothing went into Bernie's wallet, it was for the party.

Oh, and, BTW, I don't hate her. I think she's super intelligent and her platform is a helluva lot better than the rethugs'. But she is, IMO, ethically compromised and I don't see her as committing to get off that path. And it's hard to see that the poor decisions she has made were motivated by good intentions. To me, it seems clear that political and wealth ambition drive her decision-making too much.

And I will canvass to GOTV for her if she is our party candidate, so don't throw me in that pile, please.

EVENTS. Many, many EVENTS. In luxury resort locales.

Over the course of YEARS. He's been listed as a host for these big money donor parties in Palm Beach and Martha's Vineyard since at least 2011.

And he benefited from them.


The take-away is simply this...he is not an "outsider." He's wired into the party machine--and the fundraising end of it, especially--and he has been for YEARS.

He is "ESTABLISHMENT." "Status quo," if you will.

And when you can cough up pictures and videos and "transcripts" of all these DSCC equally private events, at these luxury resorts, "behind closed doors," we can play "compare and contrast" about which event is more or less "secretive." They didn't cover those parties on C-Span, ya know.

Sanders gets to stay one step removed from the cash that is spent on him, because those Banksters give it to the DSCC, and then they turn around and spend it on Sanders. But it's disingenuous of him to say he's not taking that Bankster money, because it paid for his Big Money ads, as well as other campaign expenditures--most notably during his expensive 06 run.

No wonder he tried to keep this quiet, though. It goes against the image he has been trying to project.

I will throw my support to Sanders if he gets the nomination, but I think things like this coming to light won't help him at all. This is "politics as usual" and it is fine and dandy for most politicians--expected, even--but he's trying to play like he's above this sort of thing, when we know that, for at least half a decade and quite possibly longer, he hasn't been squeamish at all about hobnobbing with Wall Street in exchange for the almighty dollar.

Do you think it's bad to give speeches to Wall Streeters, to take money for that, and to declare it, openly, on your taxes?

Is it better to have the money go to someone else, and then get funneled to you later?

And it unfortunately fits with other ways in which she in fact demonstrated her influence could be bought, as senator.

Look, it's a different way of seeing the same thing. I wish she wasn't so compromised, I really do. I wish we could just be looking at her positions vs Bernie's positions. And it's a big load of crap that reflects poorly on the party and if she's our candidate, we will be fighting through that muck and lose a lot of the Independent vote as a result, because at that point, in terms of at least the appearance of integrity, we'll be no better than the rethugs.

How about "I have no problem if a private citizen is paid to give speeches."

Giving a speech to appeal to big money is BAD? REALLY? Well, there's a cognitive dissonance problem afoot, then.

What's the difference between addressing bankers and taking a paycheck, and hosting and addressing bankers, year in, and year out, at luxury resort retreats, hobnobbing with them, separating them from tens of thousands of dollars, and then having them give the money to someone else, who then gives it to you so you can keep your job while not having to acknowledge the source of the cash?

Is one worse than the other? Is one "sneakier" than the other?

They're all given money in an attempt to influence. What we've got here is that there's an obvious paper trail with one, and a hidden one with the other.

Feh.


Reference: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/


They ALL run with the pack--even the "pure" and "saintly."

it's clearly aimed at those who have a problem with it. If that's not you, then don't choose an answer.

Listen to yourself!

There will be NO dissent!

Everyone will fall in LINE!

I never said anything about dissent.

Maybe you should just let people discuss the topic, without trying to push people off the thread.

I merely responded to your complaint about the response choices. You can bellyache about the poll all you want. But clearly the intended audience for the poll is those who have an issue with HRC speaking to GS, not those who don't have an issue.

If someone posted a poll asking if respondents love Justin Bieber or adore Justin Bieber, clearly I would recognize that I'm not among the intended audience, since neither response reflects my viewpoint.

This is GDP, not the BS group. Stuff posted in GDP is for an audience of ALL DUers, not just hose who have an issue with HRC speaking to GS.

If the idea is to limit responses to Bernie lovers/Hillary Haters, that's what the protected group is for.

FWIW, I didn't have a problem with BS speaking to GS---and Morgan Stanley, and JP Morgan, and the MIC, and other corporate entities, so why would I object to HRC doing it?

And I'm not complaining about your reply.

Yes, GDP is for an audience of all DUers, but the question, as posed, was clearly intended for those with an issue re: HRC and GS. If that's not you, that's fine. ...and I don't post in the Sanders group.

My point is that the poll didn't have a response you liked, so don't choose one (there is the "pass" option, though), not that you shouldn't be able to reply. But I can reply to your comments with my opinion, as well. Sorry if you're upset about that.

I didn't reply to the poll either, btw, as neither choice reflects my position. My only problem with HRC speaking to GS, et al, is that she seems unwilling to share what she said, and that bugs me.

over the course of five years at those luxury retreats.

I am a little surprised that he wasn't just an attendee, but a HOST of those party-retreats, for all those years, though. It cements my understanding that he is also an "establishment" candidate--just like his primary opponent.

I don't think there are transcripts of her private events--do you seriously think she had a stenographer walking around behind her in a small room of partygoers, who may or may not have been given dinner and drinks?

Even the INTERCEPT 'breathless' report grudgingly admits at the end of the piece that her UNLV Foundation contract (the only one, apparently, they were able to find on the web) addressing a convention hall of 2000+ (and anyone could have bought a ticket to that shindig) might not be the same sort of contract she signs at a tinv private, industry-specific venue. I can't see a "stenographer" or "transcriber" running around behind her at a Q and A "salon" which would be closer to a cocktail party than a lecture, and at best a 'luxe' town hall style event (which is what she does in small groups).

I can see someone transcribing her speeches if she's on a stage, addressing thousands, though. But they aren't looking for that transcription--I'm sure any of the 2000 people at that foundation event could have told us what she said there.

attendees.

Credit to DUer artislife for an OP with that title.

'nuff said.

Going on the speaking circuit is a common way that former high government officials cash in, becoming rich as a result of their public service.

And many of us out here in the real world see it as kind of sleazy. It is legal, but I don't respect former public servants who cash in.

Most public officials understand that cashing in is what you do after you've completed your public service. Going back to the voters asking for support after you've cashed in is a pretty difficult proposition.

I have to wonder at all the political consultants for Clinton, Obama, and the DNC who got on board the Hillary train for 2016. The entire Dem Establishment endorsed her as the one and only DNC-approved candidate, all of them knowing about Hillary's time on the speaking circuit.

The entire Dem Establishment was so very out of touch that they never even imagined a $250,000 speech to CitiBank or Goldman Sachs might be a hindrance to electing a Democratic candidate. They deserve to go down to defeat for their obliviousness.

Bernie Sanders 2016