OK for men but not women?

[kpete]

?Barbra Streisand
What's the issue about Secretary @HillaryClinton getting $225k a speech when Pres Bush 41/43 got $1m/Trump $1.25m. OK for men but not women?

https://twitter.com/BarbraStreisand/status/714522375446994944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[MisterP]

1. she of all people should know about the Streisand Effect

[Land of Enchantment]

2. Jeepers. Not OK for anyone---ever heard of avarice?

The money wheel never stops spinning...

[Chico Man]

19. It's not ok for anyone to be highly paid?

Is that what you are saying?

[Scootaloo]

34. Is that what he said?

[Land of Enchantment]

53. It depends

on what services are rendered. As a recovering accountant I assure you the FIRST transaction for services rendered was prostitution. It's an old accounting joke regarding 'What is the oldest profession--accounting or prostitution? The word infers trading favours. I presume the Big Banks did not pay the Big Bucks without some inference of Big Decisions in their behalf in the future. They do not give their money away for nothing, they are not benevolent, they do not help anyone, rather they take homes away form people and make them homeless. I have worked for the homeless in Albuquerque, donated what I could and have supported local organizations to feed and clothe them and their children. Have you ever visited a homeless 'camp'? Why is is OK for the super-super rich to make millions more money off something like the Haiti fiasco?

Indeed, what is wrong with making money? Nothing, unless you benefit at the expense of others' pain and suffering. It will not stop. Are you ok with this?

http://haitiantimes.com/7-articles-to-read-uncovering-hillary-clintons-haiti-record-14284/

[Whiskeytide]

84. "what is wrong with making money? Nothing, unless ...

... you benefit at the expense of others' pain and suffering."

That is well said, indeed. I have come to believe that THIS principal is the fundamental difference between modern conservatives and progressives. Certainly it's not universal (and there are many other differences), but I suspect most conservatives feel that making money on the pain and suffering of others is simply the way it's supposed to happen - and it goes to their core philosophy of life. The whole "zero sum game", "me first", "I got mine" approach to society. It's a mind set crafted over time - especially since the Reagan era.

It explains a lot if you view things through that prism.

[SammyWinstonJack]

75. EXACTLY!

[gratuitous]

3. Democrats must be pure as the driven snow

Republicans are allowed to drift.

It's called "the double standard."

[Hekate]

8. Yes. True Democrats must wear sackcloth and carry a begging bowl. They must walk barefoot...

...throughout the land and must never fly on a jet. Any candidate or officeholder who doesn't adhere to this standard is No True Democrat.

[WhiteTara]

46. I think it is actually Democratic WOMEN must be pure

as the driven snow. Men, not so much.

[gratuitous]

54. I was thinking about Al Gore

And Anthony Weiner (dick pics don't seem so bad now that Speaker Hastert is on his way to jail) and Gary Condit and so on. But yeah, Joycelyn Elders and Shirley Sherrod got the treatment, too.

[Chan790]

82. I honestly can say I don't care a lick about the sexual purity of any Democrat of any sex or gender.

Cheat, philander, sleep-around, send filthy pics, hold orgies (this is a non-exclusive list obviously)...I don't care. It's just sex and it's between you, your partners, and possibly your spouse if you've agreed to be monogamous. Exceptions for people taking sex-tourism vacations to foreign lands to exploit unwilling or underage partners that would be illegal here and pedophiles...I care greatly about them and feel they should be publicly shamed for being exploitative monsters.

Start taking money from corporate interests in exchange for stated or implied "considerations" and you're scum.

I think the line is clear--who you're fucking has no impact on the ability to do the job. (In most cases) Who you're taking money from does.

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. Oy. There's logic for ya'. nt

[arcane1]

5. Sorry, Barbara, nobody is stupid enough to fall for that twist n/t

[Skittles]

22. it is a legitimate point

[Bradical79]

31. It's a strawman argument -nt

[LanternWaste]

78. And yours is mere spin. nt

And yours is mere spin. nt

[BreakfastClub]

60. Why did nobody care that Obama's campaign was funded by corporations? Hmm? nt

[arcane1]

83. Lots of people cared. I was one of them n/t

[bluesbassman]

6. Not to worry, she'll earn the big bucks after her stint in the Oval Office.

After all, she was just a former SoS and Senator when she earned her paltry $225,000 for 30 minutes of work.

[seabeyond]

29. Ah... So now she ought to check her self accomplishments to your requirement?

[bluesbassman]

36. What the hell does that even mean?

Barbara was complaining that HRC did not get paid the same as men, but what she left out was the fact that the two men she cited were past presidents. Seems simple economics that the going rate for a president would always be higher than for a SoS or senator. HRC just needs to be patient, serve out her two terms, and she'll move up in the pay scale.

[meow2u3]

40. She also complained that no one bats an eye when a man gets paid for speaking

But let a woman try it and right away she's an evil sellout.

[bluesbassman]

74. Well I bat an eye.

Look, there's nothing wrong with anyone, of either gender, being paid to speak. Where I have a problem with it is when the payor is an individual or company that has either been in the pst or will be in the futre a recipient of political action by the payee. To suggest that HRC was paid an extremely large sum by organizations that were not expecting any favorable future action is naive at best.

[meow2u3]

79. Well, no one in the media bats an eye when a repuke man gets paid for speaking

But let a Democratic woman get paid a fraction of what Mr. Puke receives and right away she's dishonest and a scammer.

I stand partially corrected.

[brush]

52. She was not an elected official or appointee when she gave the speeches, right?

If someone offered most of us 225k to speak, with no quid pro quo wink-and-a-nod since we were a private citizen at the time, well, most would take them up on it.

I think most people prefer to forget that she was a private citizen.

[bluesbassman]

72. You should have just stopped at your subject line. At least you would have been correct.

First of all no one pays "private citizens" almost a quarter of a million dollars to give speeches unless they have some extremely valuable information to impart. Now I'm sure HRC is an engaging orator and can deliver a mesmerizing and motivational message, but frankly on the lecture circuit that's probably in the ten to twenty thousand dollar range. So you have to ask yourself what would compel an organization to pay a private citizen six figures to talk. Quid pro quo takes on many forms, and I have zero doubt that her speech benefactors were unaware of HRC's political aspirations.

[brush]

77. Did you hear what Streisand commented about that?

Men in that position with equivalent credentials were getting a million plus but we begrudge a woman for getting a quarter of that.

[BreakfastClub]

61. That's so silly. If Hillary wanted big bucks she wouldn't have gone into public service

to begin with. How idiotic.

[bluesbassman]

73. Well considering HRC's net worth is estimated at $30,000,000...

Seems like public service has been very good to her.

[Maedhros]

7. To Republicans, maybe.

But Republicans are not complaining about Hillary taking money for speeches - progressives are. And progressives have been very, very critical about Trump and both Bush's.

So Streisand's point is valid only when directed at Republicans. If you are trying to use her tweet to somehow question why progressives are concerned about a candidate taking money from Wall Street, it doesn't make any sense. Progressives are critical of both Hillary and Republicans taking money from large corporate donors - precisely because it's behavior common to both, and we don't like it.

[Egnever]

15. Well said

[surrealAmerican]

9. How about ...

... "we expect that kind of corruption from Republicans." That's part of what we hate about them.

[MisterP]

13. yeah, we're not voting for the Bushes and Trumps

[seabeyond]

28. How about... No corruption. No evidence of corruption at all. Fabricated accusation.

[surrealAmerican]

35. So, you're cool with the conflicts of interest when Republicans ...

... are profiting from them too.

So long as you're consistent, I guess you have a point - a point I certainly do not agree with.

[seabeyond]

38. I see no conflict of interest.

[Scootaloo]

63. Your personal inabilities do not alter the reality at hand

• Candidate takes in big donations, speaking fees, and the like from Corporation X.

• Candidate has a history of favoring policy beneficial to Corporation X.

• Candidate's family is very tied to and favorable to Corporation X.

• Candidate's political allies are all very favorable towards Corporation X.

• Super-delegates who favor Candidate X are in part lobbyists for Corporation X.

• Candidate campaigns with the promise of "reigning in" Corporation X.

[pnwmom]

10. And John Kerry got paid for speeches while he was still a Senator -- it was made illegal

after he left office.

Nobody asked him to cough up the transcripts when he ran for President.

That's a special Hillary requirement.

Meanwhile, where are those pre-2014 tax returns, Bernie? What are you so determined we not know about? Maybe a tax at an embarrassingly low rate due to so many deductions? Maybe Jane's 2011 payoff from Burlington College when they let her go?

[KelleyD]

11. Greatpoint...plus all the Bernie relatives receiving cash from the campaign.n/t

[pnwmom]

12. And money being funneled from Burlington college to Jane's daughter's business. n/t

[Midwestern Democrat]

45. It was banned in 1990 and even when it was allowed Senators were only permitted to keep $27,337 (27%

of their annual salary) from their speaking fees.

[Egnever]

14. Not OK for any of them.

Divisive nonsense question.

[felix_numinous]

16. Sex has nothing to do with it

We all don't like Trump or Bush greed EQUALLY as much as Hillary.

[HuckleB]

23. Hillary is not Trump or Bush.

You want to change that post?

[JackInGreen]

25. Why would someone change their opinion

Just because you want to draw a false conclusion? Ya'll are silly.

[alarimer]

17. People expect Republicans to be grifters.

Democrats are not supposed to act like that. Yet they do and it's still wrong.

More to the point, who the hell would pay Bush that kind of money to hear him commit word-salad?

[Skittles]

18. I think her point is

why all the trashing of Hillary but no trashing the men for doing the same thing

[uponit7771]

20. +1, the men aren't called on to give their speech transcripts by the media

[Skittles]

21. Hillary is endlessly grilled over Benghazi

the people who allowed the biggest terrorist attack in American history AND lied their way into a war? Not so much.

[Scootaloo]

33. I don't think we should lower our bar to match Republicans

Hillary People clearly think otherwise, and I have to wonder why that is.

[Rebkeh]

39. Republicans are not trying to get my vote

I don't demand to see their transcripts becauae they don't answer to liberals and progressives. You might as well ask why conservative voters don't demand the transcripts, it's a good question and they should, but not my concern.

That she says, "But they do it," they being of the other side, speaks volumes.

[bigwillq]

30. Because the man she is running against

In the primary isn't getting paid those amounts for a speech, and some folks want to illustrate the difference between the two candidates in that regard.

[uponit7771]

42. You mean 1/30th of 1 yrs salary over 5 years? That amount? She was under paid you know that right?

The whole speech thing is sophistry by the guy she's running against

[meow2u3]

41. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!!

We have a winner!

[stupidicus]

24. if she can't figure that one out she should quit while she's ahead

https://ourfuture.org/20160425/clintons-defense-of-big-money-wont-cut-it

that "argument" shows intellectual heft and/or integrity of the common Bushbot

[seabeyond]

26. Damn straight. My issue too. Sing it Streisand. Nt

[jalan48]

27. I knew there was a link between Hillary and the Republicans. n/t.

[Scootaloo]

32. WHy are we using Republicans to set standards for Democratic primaries?

[Rebkeh]

37. This is my thought as well

It's not okay, but they aren't trying to get my vote.

[uponit7771]

43. The media is involved also not just dem standards

[Scootaloo]

44. Streissand is comparing her directly to Jeb and Trump, both Republicans

[uponit7771]

47. I agree on that point, its the media that's also not stressing transcript from everyone not just

... Sanders though

[Scootaloo]

49. That's a meaningless statement

Like Rebkeh says, maybe if Republican voters were demanding it of their candidates, it'd be an issue. But htye aren't doing so, so it's not.

[pnwmom]

56. When did you ask to see John Kerry's paid speech transcripts? n/t

[Scootaloo]

58. I was not aware that John Kerry was running.

I also do not recall campaign finance reform being a central campaign platform of any candidates twelve years ago Not even Dean's. That year's Democrats were all running on a "Shit the Republicans got wrong" platform.

You really need something better than an attempt at a 12 year-old whattaboutism to justify why you and the rest of Hillary's supporters want the party to lower our standards to a bar set by Republicans.

[pnwmom]

59. Even in 2004 we were well aware of the possibly corrupting influence of money in politics

and had even passed a law to prevent Senators and House members from giving any more paid speeches while they were in office.

But no one ever thought about requiring transcripts till Hillary came along. And all her speeches were given AFTER she left office, when no one knew if she'd ever run again.

[Scootaloo]

62. Really? REALLY?

And all her speeches were given AFTER she left office, when no one knew if she'd ever run again.

I'm sorry, but really? That's a pretty silly note. As if anyone thought she wouldn't run again. That's precious.

Now. If you've got an answer for my question, "why are we using Republicans to set standards for Democratic primaries?" I would love to see it.

If you don't have an answer to that question, then please go bother someone else.

[pnwmom]

64. You didn't know and neither did I. n/t

[Scootaloo]

66. I was completely certain.

Barring some random, sudden, unforseeable event, her 2016 run was absolutely certain. anyway. Answer or no?

[pnwmom]

67. Really. I thought being Secretary of State would be the capstone.

Since I remember how old Reagan seemed when he was President, I didn't imagine that she would want to be almost as old -- or that her opposition would be even older than Reagan.

[Scootaloo]

68. Then maybe you don't understand your candidate all that well?

[pnwmom]

69. I've never pretended to be a mind-reader. I judge her based on her actions and words. n/t

[ChisolmTrailDem]

48. Nope. Those men were also bought and paid for politicians. nt

[davidn3600]

50. They are ALL overpaid

The last thing I'd want to do is pay money to listen to a politician spew bullshit. You can turn on cable news and get that for free.

But to answer the question....this is the Democratic primary. So really for the time being, we are focused on the Hillary vs Bernie race. Streisand listed all Republicans. Why is the Republicans setting the standard? Because Donald Trump charges a million for a speech it makes it OK for Hillary to charge $225k?

I'm tired of this "they are doing it too!" crap. That's the argument 10 year olds make. We are supposed to be better than them.

[Thinkingabout]

51. After listening to Hillary speaking, she does command an audience, probably has good information.

She must have made an impression, she went back more than once.

[Rex]

57. Someone can pay me a fraction of that, where ya want me at?

I give great lectures on what is currently in my pocket.

[Iggo]

65. Unfortunate examples, Babs. (n/t)

[Lady_Chat]

70. "Why Barbara Boxer Isn’t Bothered By Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Speaking Fees"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barbara-boxer-hillary-clinton-speaking-fees_us_56b271e4e4b08069c7a5ef50

Seems like it is ok for men and not women, same goes for the Iraq War Vote...fine for Biden, Kerry and Edwards. Go figure.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. Yes, I hold Hillary to a higher standard.

Not because she's a woman, but because she's a Democrat.

[Scuba]

76. Barbra doesn't seem to understand the difference between a candidate and a past president.

Not too bright, or disingenuous? Your call.

[Chan790]

80. Streisand may not have noticed...

but progressives that are up in arms about Hillary's speaking fees never have or would support any of those Republican men.

That's like saying I'm a sexist because I hate her music...while ignoring that I also don't like male singers that record Broadway standards, traditional pop, and disco either. She's keyed in, in her assessment, on the wrong signifier as being the important signifier.

It has nothing to do with Hillary's gender and everything to do with her behavior being inappropriate for someone who claims to be a progressive Democrat. I'd criticize Sanders as harshly if he'd ever made a speech to Goldman Sachs or Citi or J.P. Morgan for that kind of money.

[Democat]

81. Most of the people attacking Clinton are Trump supporters

Why would they have a problem with Trump doing whatever he wants?