February 26, 2007
jk defends President Clinton
Mark the date, these planets may not align for another decade or two.
Extreme Mortman joins a chorus of folks who are overwhelmed by President Clinton's sizeable remuneration from speaking engagements. Mortman at least gets a great riff out of it:
Now whether or not you agree with the thrust of Gore’s global warming message, there’s some charm in internationally crusading for a cause you believe in.Contrast Gore’s nobility with Bill Clinton. We learned in Friday’s Post story about Clinton’s multi-million dollar speaking gigs that, “Two-thirds of the former president’s speaking money has come from foreign sources.”
Wonder if, instead of Gore, it were Clinton on stage accepting an Oscar tonight, he’d charge a speaking fee.
I don't want Chairman Dingell to say that CEOs make too much money. And I am certainly not going to tell our 42nd President not to accept compensation offered without coercion.
I also remember Bill Clinton's causing a lot more trouble when he was receiving his modest government salary. A little industrious earning seems to have been good for him -- and us.
Posted by jk at February 26, 2007 6:41 PM
There's only one small problem with your 'defense of Clinton' argument: Coercion.
There may not be any vis-a-vis his speaking fee, but if his wife is elected "Ms. POTUS," watch out.
Are these fee payers,
A) Financing Ms. Clinton's presidential campaign outside of campaign finance laws?
B) Securing influence with the Clinton's in the event she is elected President?
C) Attempting to manipulate markets for their products (or any ol' darn thing) by the power of celebrity?
D) All of the above.
More interesting than the Mortman post is Friday's Post story.
Posted by: johngalt at February 28, 2007 3:46 PMNo, I'm not going to turn on my new little buddy based on distant appearances of conflicts of interest. President Clinton is a private citizen now, he can make his own deals.
Of course he remains plugged into politics and his wife is running. I don't think that rises to the level of coercion.
I'm not going to regulate CEO pay or seek better enforcement of campaign finance regulations. He brings value to the venues at which hew speaks, he might as well profit from it.
Posted by: jk at February 28, 2007 4:13 PM | What do you think? [2]