DWS to Warren and Sanders: "Mind Your Own Business"

[This account no longer in use.]

Theory: Debbie Wasserman Schultz has actually been playing 267D chess this entire time. In actuality, she's a Sandersite progressive who's intentionally trying to make the establishment look worse so that the Sanders-Warren-Ellison wing of the Democratic Party can rise up.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I am usually not eager to defend Wulfric, but -- unless I'm reading this incorrectly -- I don't think he was suggesting Obama was sexist/anti-Semitic. I think he was referencing that story from Politico about how DWS was prepared to label Obama as such, if he had her replaced.

Well, that makes Obama look even worse if he wouldn't fire someone hurting the party a lot because they'd claim he was sexist and anti-semitic. Definitely not an excuse for the President to not fire someone.

[Hermit For Peace]

From the linked article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And so is something wrong with this? I agree that it's nobody's business if Obama wants to give a speech to wall street and get lucrative compensation for it. Is there anybody here who would turn down $400,000 to give a speech?

As someone who is not planning to run for office, I would accept the money and give the speech. But if I was planning to run for office someday, I would recognize the influence the money could potentially put on me, and say, respectfully, that I'm happy to give the speech, but there's no need to pay me more than a thousand or two.

Obama's time is worth much more than that. He has a right to be compensated for what he is worth. All the other Presidents in modern times have given these speeches. Besides, why should he even want to run for any other office in the future? No President in recent history has ever done that. Such a moot point in my opinion anyway.

Obama has earned the right to be paid BIG bucks for his time, wisdom and knowledge. Period. So has Hillary.

[Shadows]

No, Obama or anyone's speech is not worth 400,000K for an hour. That is ridiculous & a total waste of money. But Obama has every personal right to do it, but is looks immoral n distasteful when there is a revolving door with DC & Wall Street where Wall Streets buys n regulates Congress n has huge influence on the President.

Besides Obama is probably going to earn 100's of Millions through book deals alone. He signed a massive many million deal for a new book, absurdly high amount, he doesn't need the money. And there are major conflicts of interest - He is involved in the DNC & installed Perez who is incharge of all the money issues & you have consultants making millions of DNC ! So Obama should stay out of politics then!

Anyways I don't know why there is a need for a new thread for this! DWS is meaningless, no1 gives a shi* about her - She has no stature to call out Sanders or Warren!

[Chief Justice Keef]

Obama's time is worth much more than that. He has a right to be compensated for what he is worth. All the other Presidents in modern times have given these speeches. Besides, why should he even want to run for any other office in the future? No President in recent history has ever done that. Such a moot point in my opinion anyway.

Obama has earned the right to be paid BIG bucks for his time, wisdom and knowledge. Period. So has Hillary.

What does him being paid to speak in front of Wall Street say about his values, though? And the Democratic Party as a whole? Are they just going to accept money to speak no matter who it comes from?

[All Along The Watchtower]

DWS still thinks she still has any shred of credibility. Sad!

[HAnnA MArin County]

Funny how those butthurts in the jfern world of "rigged primary!" still scream foul at the primary but adamantly dismiss any "rigged" claims from Clinton supporters in the general, despite the fact that we know that Russia interfered and did so to get Trump elected. I guess in their world, an election is only "rigged" when Hillary wins. Sad!

[Virginiá]

Obama was told by basically every senate, house, and gubernatorial candidate on the democratic side to stay far away from the campaign. There's not much he could have done without creating enemies, which wouldn't have helped matters. He did the best he could under the circumstances. And ultimately, he doesn't control the party's fundraising, messaging, platform creation, recruitment, or overall strategy. The ultimate chief of that operation is the party chair.

Sure, but I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here. You're not saying that if the party had campaigned / strategized just right, it could have stunted the wave in that election, right? Obama was unpopular in 2014, and his image reflected onto the party. There is only so much party officials and great campaigning can do. In the end, everyone is at the mercy of the national mood, which clearly wasn't in favor of Democrats at the time.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I am usually not eager to defend Wulfric, but -- unless I'm reading this incorrectly -- I don't think he was suggesting Obama was sexist/anti-Semitic. I think he was referencing that story from Politico about how DWS was prepared to label Obama as such, if he had her replaced.

Well, that makes Obama look even worse if he wouldn't fire someone hurting the party a lot because they'd claim he was sexist and anti-semitic. Definitely not an excuse for the President to not fire someone.

It makes a lot of sense when you think of Obama as the leader of a personality-driven faction within the party obsessed with preserving his own reputation and building prestige. Which, no, is not a particularly flattering description. Are you excited for the first round of designated "leaders" minted by the Obama Foundation Leadership Institute?

It's sad that this is such a true description. It feels like for over a quarter-century, we've had a Democratic party dominated by two concerns:

-Making a Clinton president and burnishing the Clinton name, and more recently,
-Making Obama look good to history.

That we have third factions vaguely trying to coalesce around figures like Sanders and Gabbard is more about how the Obama and Clinton leadership have focused on advancing their leaders, focused on the presidency, at the expense of the party in general.

[Hermit For Peace]

Optics be damned. And "morality" in this instance is in the eye of the beholder. Obama has a right to cash in on his fame. He's earned every penny he can get. It doesn't bother me what he does as a private citizen. He paid his dues. Period.

Keep your eyes on your own plate.

[Hermit For Peace]

The "private citizen" excuse is pathetic. Obama is a public figure and will always be a public figure. This would be true even if he weren't organizing a multi-billion dollar foundation that will perform very public work and continuing to make public statements. Never mind that the phrase private citizen is itself an oxymoron - citizenship is by definition not private.

And what does it mean to have a "right" to cash in on one's fame, anyway? Does it apply to all famous people, or only those who wear boots that you would enjoy licking?

Period.

Period.

I'm sure that that formulation is meant to sound clever and convincing, as if you're putting in the final word and decisively ending the discussion, but it has the effect of making you sound like someone who doesn't really believe what he is saying. Especially when you return to the same thread and repeat the same shtick.

Oh I believe what I'm saying.

And just what, exactly, is Obama doing that is against the law? Giving a highly paid speech? How is that wrong?

[Anti-Bothsidesism]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Music to my ears