Obama Balances Civic-Minded Side With the Lure of a $400,000 Speech

[Verax]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/politics/obama-speech-fee.html

WASHINGTON — Two post-presidential Barack Obamas emerged this week.


The first was the civic-minded one, seated on a stage in Chicago, where he talked about the importance of community organizing and told a student audience that he had succeeded in politics because people believed “my values were not so different from theirs.”


The other was the one set to cash a $400,000 check from Wall Street — the same amount as his yearly salary during his time in the White House — when he delivers a speech in September at a health care conference run by Cantor Fitzgerald, a trading and investment firm.


On Wednesday, Mr. Obama’s spokesman defended the former president’s coming speech, saying Mr. Obama decided to give it because health care changes were important to him. The spokesman, Eric Schultz, noted that Cantor Fitzgerald is a Wall Street firm but pointed out in a statement that as a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama raised money from Wall Street and went on to aggressively regulate it.


Mr. Obama will spend most of his post-presidency, Mr. Schultz said, “training and elevating a new generation of political leaders in America.”

Another example of the chasm between the Bernie Sanders Democrats and the old guard. I don't see how you can believe Wall Street is unjust yet take their money, for any excuse. This aligns with my suspicion that Democratic leadership and power isn't really serious about financial reform or truly working in the best interests of the average person, they just pretend to work for us. In practice they work primarily for the oligarchy no different than the Republicans.

 

[MrPeanut]

Obama has always been a pretty centrist democrat. The problem is that when the right turns hard right it makes politicians like Obama appear to be progressive. I agree that in practice the two parties treat wall street and the wealthy in a very similar way. Democrats may not slash their taxes, but they will bail them out and hesitate to push policies that might seem restrictive towards them. I will say that Obama giving these speeches shows a real lack of understanding of optics. It will be interesting to see democrats continue to wrap themselves in Obama's popularity, within the party, and also talk about going after big money and the super wealthy.

 

[joG]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/politics/obama-speech-fee.html



Another example of the chasm between the Bernie Sanders Democrats and the old guard. I don't see how you can believe Wall Street is unjust yet take their money, for any excuse. This aligns with my suspicion that Democratic leadership and power isn't really serious about financial reform or truly working in the best interests of the average person, they just pretend to work for us. In practice they work primarily for the oligarchy no different than the Republicans.

At least Obama wasn't silly enough to think himself a socialist.

 

[Verax]

Obama has always been a pretty centrist democrat. The problem is that when the right turns hard right it makes politicians like Obama appear to be progressive. I agree that in practice the two parties treat wall street and the wealthy in a very similar way. Democrats may not slash their taxes, but they will bail them out and hesitate to push policies that might seem restrictive towards them. I will say that Obama giving these speeches shows a real lack of understanding of optics. It will be interesting to see democrats continue to wrap themselves in Obama's popularity, within the party, and also talk about going after big money and the super wealthy.

Pretty funny that Obama was reviled by the right as the most left leftist in history and was pushing the "progressive agenda" just like Clinton but nothing could be farther from the truth. I too forgot that he really was never a progressive or even solid left on economics.

I think a lot of Americans are done with the Democrats pro-wealthy lite stance and if they don't move towards the Bernie platform they're just setting themselves up for a repeat of 2016. The pessimist in me thinks this is exactly what they want as if they had embraced Bernie he would be president right now and the leadership of both parties and their wealthy patrons agree that that would be unacceptable.

 

[Verax]

At least Obama wasn't silly enough to think himself a socialist.

Why would he do that? There is very little support for socialism in the U.S.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Despite the rhetoric, Obama's actions were often pro-Wallstreet. Just because he didn't bend over backwards as much as some Republicans would doesn't mean he didn't bend over backwards. He definitely played the limbo game even if he wasn't the best at it.

 

[MrPeanut]

Pretty funny that Obama was reviled by the right as the most left leftist in history and was pushing the "progressive agenda" just like Clinton but nothing could be farther from the truth. I too forgot that he really was never a progressive or even solid left on economics.

I think a lot of Americans are done with the Democrats pro-wealthy lite stance and if they don't move towards the Bernie platform they're just setting themselves up for a repeat of 2016. The pessimist in me thinks this is exactly what they want as if they had embraced Bernie he would be president right now and the leadership of both parties and their wealthy patrons agree that that would be unacceptable.

Democrats have banked off of the popularity of FDR for decades. Now that large portions of the working class are deciding dems don't represent them anymore the party is in a bit of trouble. Right wing populism can be beaten with left wing populism. I have less faith that it can be defeated by centrism. If republicans found a way to appeal to minorities dems would be screwed.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Democrats have banked off of the popularity of FDR for decades. Now that large portions of the working class are deciding dems don't represent them anymore the party is in a bit of trouble. Right wing populism can be beaten with left wing populism. I have less faith that it can be defeated by centrism. If republicans found a way to appeal to minorities dems would be screwed.

Fdrs first actions as president was saving the banks and the capitalistic system. That hardly sounds like something like a leftist would do

 

[Port & Starboard]

Bernie "the saint" would jump all over a $400,000 speech and not give a single thought about the little guy.

 

[MrPeanut]

Fdrs first actions as president was saving the banks and the capitalistic system. That hardly sounds like something like a leftist would do

So FDR wasn't on the left? That's the first time I've ever heard that.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

So FDR wasn't on the left? That's the first time I've ever heard that.

That's not what I meant.

From 1932-1933 FDR implemented policies that tried to stabilize the effects of the depression and tried to gain the support of buissnessmen.

1934-1936 were the years FDR truest became a progressive as we now recognize them.

 

[MrPeanut]

That's not what I meant.

From 1932-1933 FDR implemented policies that tried to stabilize the effects of the depression and tried to gain the support of buissnessmen.

1934-1936 were the years FDR truest became a progressive as we now recognize them.

Okay, so what is the point of that? FDR was extremely popular with the working class, and established a strong base of support that has lasted decades. Modern democrats play to the working class a lot less, and it is starting to show in votes. They have moved towards the center on working class issues. I'm not attempting to act like FDR was pure. My only intent is to say that the base he created is starting to slip away because of the actions of modern democrats.