Why Are People Worried About Obama’s Speaking Fees When Sunkist Stalin Is the Real Scammer? – The Root
More often than not and now more than ever, once a sitting president leaves office, he does the following: treats his former status as the most powerful person on Earth for the winning Lotto ticket it is. This is done by way of lucrative book fees, high-paid speaking engagements and sitting on a board or 27 for a pretty-pretty nice amount of money.
For former president Barack Obama, who can boast not only of being one of the few two-term Democratic presidents, but the first black one, such bonafides make him even more capable of making lots and lots of bread (please read bread in the voice of Stevie J.)
However, like many things associated with his time in office, what was once considered a norm for others is now suddenly an issue when Obama partakes in the practice.
For more than a week now, a fair amount of folks have been complaining about Obama netting $400,000 for a speaking engagement on top of the reported $60 million he and his wife, former First Lady Michelle Obama, earned for their collective book deal. Newsweek writer Chris Riotta asks the following: How could it be that Obama, the smooth-talking Democratic candidate in 2008 who slammed Wall Street greed and resonated with the working class in a way his party has since been unable to authentically recreate, is living his post-presidential life like an elitist one percent?
The annoyances in this leading question are two-fold. One, to quote many a lovable Negro today, I just think its funny how suddenly the first black president has to be held to certain standards with respect to making money. After all, capitalism is a religion in America so its peculiar that anyone is perplexed that a former head of state of this capitalistic country wouldnt follow traditions such as seeing his post-presidency through the lens of Cash rules everything around me. Yet the likes of Riotta and others have been asking, Isnt $60 million enough?
Go ask a Clinton, a Bush, a Reagan or a Kennedy that. Speaking of, Obama and Bill Clinton biographer David Maraniss said Obama does not need the money and should not accept it. A Clinton biographer said this. The Clintons treated the White House like an AirBnB for big donors and made several fortunes after the Clinton presidency. But please, Barry, dont get too rich on em. Mind you, the types making these calls are well-paid white folks in media who currently earn far more than me and others like me for similar, if not less, work.
As for the 2008 Obama who slammed Wall Street, there is a bit of revisionist history at hand. Like a kid at the end of an old ABC family sitcom who suddenly saved the day with his naivet, Riotta quotes Obama in 2009 saying, I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street and ends his piece with this quip, Maybe that Obama should have a talk with 2017 Obama.
Obama notoriously raised more money than political opponents like Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Mitt Romney from Wall Street. He even raised more money than former president George W. Bush. The Obama administration has long had criticism over this, which is why when asked about the fee and criticisms over it, Obama spokesman Eric Schultz said: With regard to this or any speech involving Wall Street sponsors, Id just point out that in 2008, Barack Obama raised more money from Wall Street than any candidate in historyand still went on to successfully pass and implement the toughest reforms on Wall Street since [President Franklin D. Roosevelt].
Thats long been an Obama retort to criticism over taking so much money from the Street. One could easily refute that by noting that many of the folks on Wall Street who played a pivotal role in the financial disaster of years past ought to be in jail. Nevertheless, when it comes to Obama and who hell take money from, hes long told you what he was about. The game is the game, and while you can criticize it as you see fit, dont rewrite history to make your arbitrary, hypocritical point.
Joining the well-paid media people admonishing Obama for taking $400,000 to speak about healthcare (imagine the man behind Obamacare doing such a thing,) are Democratic politicians with curious ambitions for 2020. Enter Sen. Bernie Sanders, who said Obama is a friend of mine yet he finds his decision to be distasteful.
I just think it does not look good, Sanders explained on CNN. I just think it is distastefulnot a good idea that he did that.
Oh, Bernie. You still think 45s base cares all that much about their own economic well-being as opposed to the preservation of the white establishment and their frail lil egos. 45 has been categorized as an economic populist, but hes a billionaire and longtime scammer whos stacked his cabinet with just about all of Goldman Sachs and various other billionaires who know absolutely nothing. And yet, those deplorables still heavily support 45, as evidenced by poll after poll.
Whats actually distasteful is Sanders still not understanding that issues like reproductive rights, racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia are just as much economic issues as his talking points about the ills of Wall Street. Go do your homework and get out of Obamas pockets. This is the part where one of his racist supporters will send me a comment calling me a neoliberal and cheerleader for capitalism. I have too much private student loan debt hovering over me to be any of those things.
Then theres Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who said she was troubled by Obama accepting that speaking fee. However, she took it further than Sanders did. In an interview with the Guardian, Warren said, President Obama, like many others in both parties, talk about a set of big national statistics that look shiny and great but increasingly have giant blind spots.
Warren went on to say: The lived experiences of most Americans is that they are being left behind in this economy. Worse than being left behind, theyre getting kicked in the teeth.
So Obama doesnt know the lived experiences of most Americans, but Warren apparently does. Yet this is the same person who allowed Ben Carsons nomination as housing secretary (despite his only qualification being he can recite the story of Noahs Ark) to proceed before ultimately voting against him after being roasted like wings by liberals. Of course, Warren is promoting her new book, which is often a prerequisite for a looming presidential bid.
And remember: Warren also campaigned heavily for Hillary Dont Be Surprised If She Ask Where The Cash At? Clinton.
I agree with Slates Daniel Gross, who wrote that critics assign far too much symbolic value to activities that, at their core, have not been anathema to progressivism in the past and shouldnt be now.
This feels like a nonissue made into something larger so certain people who want to maintain their profiles further gain traction. It also comes across as misplaced anger. Even if Obama only accepted $25 and a Popeyes combo with an extra side of red beans and rice as payment for speaking engagements, it would not set a new tone and change the industry. I mean, the first black president was succeeded by a reality TV huckster who speaks as if reading more than three sentences will give him a huge migraine. A reality TV huckster who is using his position as president to enrich himself and his family. A reality TV huckster who wont even tell you how much he really makes and from whom.
Obama isnt the anomaly. Sunkist Stalin is. Go after that crooked president instead of worrying about the old one doing the same thing as all before him.