Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton struggled Wednesday night to answer a question about why she took more than $600,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in one year.
“Well, I don’t know. That’s what they offered,” she said…
******************
In the olden days (2008), Harvard president Larry Summers made do with $135,000 for his speech in front of Goldman Sachs.
When questions were raised, during his subsequent government service, about some of his many hugely paid financial sector stand-ups, Summers donated a sliver of the money to charity.
February 4th, 2016 at 10:13AM
This is a glaring example of malicious and dishonest reporting. Anybody who watched the townhall knows that Hillary did not struggle. She made fun of the ridiculous point that has been made ad nauseam and that is rooted in a sexist belief that women should not be paid – and especially should not be paid a lot – for their work.
But yes, you are absolutely right, sexist reporting like this definitely helps out male candidates on both sides.
February 4th, 2016 at 11:04AM
Clarissa: Women should be paid and paid a lot for their work. Delivering a short speech written by other people is not much work, and should not be highly paid, regardless of gender. When the excessive money comes from a place as corrupt as Goldman Sachs it certainly feels like a quid pro quo.
I’m a Hillary supporter; I think she has a far better chance than Bernie. But if you look at Google News today, which is all over her response to the question, I think it’s pretty clear that this was a misstep. I mean, the speech (and speeches like it) was a misstep, and her answer was a misstep. Rather than saying everyone does it and that’s the market rate, Hillary should step this one back – just as she’s currently stepping back previously scheduled financial sector fundraisers – and acknowledge that it was indeed not well-judged.
February 4th, 2016 at 11:05AM
Clarissa what exactly was the work that she was being paid that kind of money for?
how would one justify such pay from the donor class “Well, I don’t know…”
February 4th, 2016 at 11:08AM
I watched it, too… the issue is not sexism. The issue is that she signed on to the amoral style of Wall Street that holds money is good and more is better, whether there is real value in the transaction or not.
February 4th, 2016 at 11:10AM
Unfortunately, there is real value in the transaction: Campaign money for Hillary, and influence in her White House for Goldman Sachs. Bad optics.
February 4th, 2016 at 11:32AM
We are on the same page, I believe. If there was any value it was unidirectional. Unless we assume a future quid pro quo.
February 4th, 2016 at 11:42AM
BC, I wouldn’t say a quid pro quo as much as mutual common interests, which is the real issue/problem.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/lloyd-blankfein-bernie-sanders-218689
February 4th, 2016 at 12:40PM
Maybe I should have been clearer by saying she signed on to the amoral style of Wall Street that holds money is good and more is better, whether there is redeeming social value in the transaction or not.
February 4th, 2016 at 3:20PM
indeed, likely why they chose NY as their home base.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/27/want-to-reverse-sky-high-inequality-bernie-sanders-is-the-pragmatic-choice?CMP=fb_us
February 4th, 2016 at 7:35PM
I read a well-written piece a while back that Hillary is the major party candidate most acceptable to Corporate America. Can’t recall the source, but I couldn’t quarrel with the cold-blooded reasoning. Established track record, etc. (Trump was viewed in the article as disruptive of even the more reliably corporate Republican candidates.)
February 5th, 2016 at 10:03AM
The idea that Hillary can be corrupted by Wall Street amorality is laughable. That would be a case of a second-semester art student giving painting lessons to Michelangelo. The Clintons are the Michelangelo and Michelangela of amorality.
February 5th, 2016 at 3:36PM
Koch money corrupts Republicans, but Goldman Sachs money doesn’t corrupt Hillary?
February 5th, 2016 at 3:46PM
JND: I’m afraid it does. Obviously.