Seth Abramson on The Huffington Post writes:
“The real experts on this topic are the friends and acquaintances of Hillary’s who, for whatever reason, have chosen to be candid about what they believe is in those speeches. And it’s only that candor that helps explain the longest-running mystery of the Democratic primary — a mystery that’s been ongoing for over seventy days — which is this: why would anyone pay $225,000 for an hour-long speech by a private citizen who (at the time) claimed to have no interest in returning to politics?”
“Mr. Sanders has implied that there are only two possible answers: (a) the money wasn’t for the speeches themselves, but for the influence major institutional players on Wall Street thought that money could buy them if and when Clinton ran for President; or (b) the speeches laid out a defense of Wall Street greed so passionate and total that hearing it uttered by a person of power and influence was worth every penny.”
DailyKos Member Frederick Carlos makes the comment:
“Mrs. Clinton was not a sitting elected or appointed official when she gave these speeches, but she was a likely to be front running presidential candidate. Thus a politician. And to no one’s surprise, that is exactly what she turned out to be.”
“The argument that there is no problem unless one can show a quid pro quo is so silly that it insults the intelligence of everyone exposed to it.”
“The common sense of this matter is that voters well understand that people, including and especially politicians, do not bite the hands that feed them. Most people get this.”
“The citizens have a right to demand that the people who present themselves for election be able to reasonably demonstrate that they are not compromised by those whose interests do not square with the public interest. And that is why Senator Sanders is doing unexpectedly well against the person who was the presumptive nominee long before any votes were cast.”
“People are glad he is raising this utterly valid concern and are sending him millions of small donations to make sure he continues to be able to do so. Meanwhile, those who paid Mrs. Clinton a lot of money for a few minutes, remain in the shadows, along with their agenda.”
Diarist Notes: I know Im taking some risks with the picture above. Its a bit aggressive. I was thinking of choosing a less aggressive debate picture. However, you must understand how painful 2008 was for many of us here. I was unemployed for a period of time living off of savings and unemployment. I remember sending out hundreds of resumes. The interviews I received were a bit different, more hostile and aggressive than the ones a few years earlier which seemed more like a recruitment session. Therefore, the more aggressive picture I chose seems a bit more fitting. I feel like I was the one punished for the 2008 financial crisis when in fact I did nothing wrong. The people who did something wrong were those guys in the executive suite, but not me and certainly not many of the hardworking people out there. The executives were not punished and they went on to make record sums of cash. This cant stand and Bernie Sanders might be the only one who can make changes to make it right.