I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

No one thinks he needs the money like no one thinks anyone who makes tons of money needs it. But that's very different than saying he shouldn't take it.

True.

No one thinks it's good for the Democratic Party, but everyone arguing with you here takes issue with your assertion that it is bad for the Democratic Party.

I hear people saying that if I think about it, I shouldn't have a problem with it (OK), that Democrats should work harder to explain to other people why they shouldn't have a problem with it (noble but foolish), and that Democrats shouldn't abandon core principles to satisfy idiot voters (true, but if it's a core Democratic principle that someone with a lot of money should have the opportunity to get more on Wall Street, that's not the hill I want to die on). I don't see anyone actually disputing that it is unhelpful.

I've tried to distinguish between being paid huge amounts of money before running (Hillary). You won't bite and continue to act like these two things are the same or should be treated the same way.

You are quite right that Hillary hurt herself doing this, and you are quite right that there is a distinction between what she did and what he is doing, but since I wasn't talking about her in the first place it doesn't change my view about what he is doing.

You actively ignore the many reasons why Obama would be paid handsomely and act like the fact that the perception of corruption is dispositive of whether or not he should take money for speaking engagements after leaving office.

I'm not ignoring them, but they don't address my point.

I do not think people are focused on this the way you are.

OK. I respect your view on that one, and we can agree to have different views. FWIW, I don't think it's a lot of people.

I do not think if he (and every Democratic President) declined all money from anyone forever after leaving office that that would change one voter's impression that politicians are bought and paid for. I and others have said that it's the actual access lobbyists and industries have, the campaign finance laws, and the actual decisions politicians make which continually favor corporations over people, etc. that make it so. You ignore it all and continue to act like this "soft corruption" theory is settled.

I think Democrats need to be better than Republicans on this stuff, and that it's not just the actual decisions that matter -- it's the narrative and the story around it as well. YMMV. It's a big tent, and we can agree to disagree on this one, too. Thank you for taking seriously what I had to say.