Barack Obama Cashed In On A $400,000 Speech And Even Leftists Are Asking “Why?”

Is this just something that former (Democrat) presidents and politicians do? I mean, I’m sure Republicans must get the same kind of offers. But I think because the Democrats rail against the EEEEEEVIL rich (in particular, the EEEEEEEVIL rich banks), they end up with the most criticism.

It couldn’t have happened to sleazier people.

Following the Bill and Hillary model, former President Barack Obama (excuse me while I revel in the fact that “former” is in front of that) gave a big speech for the financial firm Cantor Fitzgerald. And his speaking fee? $400,000 –

Less than 100 days after leaving office, Mr Obama has followed through: accepting a $400,000 speaking fee from Cantor Fitzgerald, the mid-sized investment bank.
On Tuesday a person familiar with the arrangement confirmed that Mr Obama had agreed to appear as the keynote speaker at Cantor’s annual healthcare conference in September. The person declined to comment on what the former president might do with his fee, which is nearly twice the $225,000 price commanded by Mrs Clinton during three speeches to Goldman in 2013.
Mr Obama could not be reached for comment.

YOWZA. The man better be revealing the Meaning Of Life for that much money.

The funny thing about this, though? People on the left actually criticized Obama for charging that much money for a speech.

From the Washington Post –

Obama’s situation is not the same as Clinton’s, in that he cannot run for president again. So taking Wall Street’s money, at this point, won’t directly affect official U.S. policy that Obama will pursue in the future. Nor is there any rule prohibiting him from receiving the money.
But that doesn’t mean the arrangement isn’t problematic — especially these days and especially for Obama and his party. Below are a few reasons Obama may want to rethink his decision –

1. It continues to set a dubious precedent
2. We have other rules against retroactively cashing in
3. Democrats are trying to be the anti-Wall Street party
4. Obama himself discussed the corrupting influence of such arrangements in his book

From Vox.com –

This approach has a lot of political and substantive merits. But it is invariably subject to the objection: really?
Did you really avoid breaking up the big banks because you thought it would undermine financial stability, or were you on the take? Did you really think a fracking ban would be bad for the environment, or were you on the take? One man’s sophisticated and pragmatic approach to public policy can be the other man’s grab bag of corrupt opportunism.
Leaders who sincerely care about the fate of the progressive center as a nationally and globally viable political movement need to push back against this perception by behaving with a higher degree of personal integrity than their rivals — not by accepting the logic that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Translation: Obama’s a big fat hypocrite who talked smack about evil rich banks, but has no problem taking their money for doing practically nothing.

Never thought I’d agree with Matt Yglesias, to be truthful.

It’s just another example of how much power and money matter to Democrats, not the people that they claim to be champions of. The Clintons took truckloads of money to give speeches to big Wall Street banks, and it looks like Obama is doing the same thing. Because he’s entitled to it. Former presidents can do whatever they like, you know.

Big freaking surprise.

(h/t OTB)