On the fake-‘progressive’ (actually conservative-Democratic-Party) website that’s run by a longtime CIA asset Markos Moulitsas, «Daily Kos», there was posted on February 24th an article by «motocat», headlined, «I have personally been to a closed door corporate Clinton speech. This is what I experienced».
This person, he or she, didn’t indicate what the speech said, other than «how disappointing the whole thing was», and, that it was a speech by Bill Clinton, not Hillary Clinton, and «It made me feel sort of sad to see how old and feeble he looked. The last time I had seen Bill speak was when he was running for his first term as President. He looked like a different man».
Then the author went into speculation about what might be in Hillary Clinton’s speeches:
«Everyone wondering what Hillary possibly could have said in 30 minutes that was worth 250K is missing the point. These people are celebrities. They are booked to deliver paid speeches, because it benefits those who book them in some way. You might as well ask what Kanye West could possibly say in 45 minutes at Madison Square Garden that would be worth 250K to the promoter.
I have no doubt that Hillary does not want to release the transcripts of those speeches because those pouring through them for a gotcha news story or to prove a point, will surely find praise for the institutions she was speaking on behalf of. In this political climate, that would be a bad news cycle for her. I also have no doubt that she also showered glowing praise on the countless colleges whose commission speeches she spoke at, as well as praised the accomplishments of whatever non-profit she spoke on behalf of. Does anyone really think her speech to the US Green building council in 2013 was fair and balanced about negative aspects of what the Green building council has done? No. These are performances for a purpose.
Personally, I am surprised she just doesn’t come out and say the following.
‘For many years I worked as a paid speaker. I gave speeches to many different organizations in many different industries, who all paid me very well. It was my job, and part of my job was to be inspiring, encouraging, and flattering to those people in the audience and those who paid me.’
I’m not sure what people expect to find in these corporate event speeches she gave dozens of throughout the year. Backroom promises? Revelations about how she plans to screw the middle class? Confessions of cardinal sins? No company or speaker would be so stupid as to include that sort of thing in a corporate event speech anyway.
There are many important issues to be focusing on right now in this race and debate, but this isn’t one of them».
There were over a thousand reader-comments to that idiotic article, as of April 1st, and then it said: «Comments are closed on this story». The readers who had gotten through the article and were sufficiently struck by it to enter a comment to it were generally debating each other, via comments such as «What makes the diarist think that a pubic [that person’s perhaps Freudian misspelling of ‘public’] event selling tickets has any comparison to the intimate and closed door speeches given by the Clintons to the upper echelon of high finance?» versus (responding to that one): «or the private intimate talks by Bernie and with his supporters. How doe [that person’s misspelling of ‘do’, of course] we know Bernie has not promised something». In other words, a foolish article elicited over a thousand comments from foolish readers, at that Democratic-Party propaganda site. They’re just the Democratic Party equivalent of Rush Limbaugh’s Republican-Party fools – no different, except for the labels they give themselves.
Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches (which none of those fools knew anything about – not even the article’s writer did) are not relevant because of anything that they said (which was public to all attendees; her meaningful comments might have been made privately to the executive who had hired her for the speech), but because the organizations that paid typically $225,000 to her, for each of them, were paying a servant, for extremely valuable services that that servant is being expected to provide to the owners and top executives of that organization if that servant becomes the US President (or, in the case of her husband Bill) for valuable services that already were provided by that servant when he was a President. They’re pay-offs, for services that are anticipated, or else that have already been provided. They are not (such as the author was assuming) for «the speech».
The fools who had read that article weren’t commenting about how atrocious and stupid it was; they were debating with each other, on the basis of their ignorance and stupidity, which enabled that article to hold their interest and then to engage comments from them upon other idiots’ comments about it.
This is how enough of such self-characterizing ‘liberal’ voters become suckered into voting for a far-right (except on ‘social’ issues) candidate who is as atrocious and unqualified to serve as President as is Hillary Clinton.
However, if her speeches are relevant as prospective, and/or retrospective, pay-offs to her, then who and what are these groups that have been providing these pay-offs to her. Here’s the complete list, as it was tabulated and posted online in March by the lawyer Paul Campos (then copied without credit to him, by several others). And, as you can see, they are anything but «the countless colleges whose commission speeches she spoke at, as well as praised the accomplishments of whatever non-profit she spoke on behalf of». None of the 91 speeches was to a college, nor to any other such type of organization.
At zerohedge, the payments for all the speeches were totaled to: $21,667,000.
Anyone who would presume that Hillary Clinton gets paid those types of fees for «her speeches», because she’s a «celebrity», needs to go back to elementary school. (But, of course, since the aristocracy are in control of the country, the elementary schools aren't even teaching about such matters – nor are the high schools, which should be.)
In other words, her paid speeches are just a part of the legal graft she’s in politics for. «You might as well ask what Kanye West could possibly say in 45 minutes at Madison Square Garden that would be worth 250K to the promoter». No, it’s not like that, at all.
Hillary Clinton is no Kanye West. She makes her money in a very different way. Serving a far wealthier clientele. What she serves them, is us.
After all, how else would you get a wealth-distribution that’s like this?
It requires lots of lies, and lots of suckers for them, to make them believe in «the system».
To produce the meat, shepherds are needed; and people such as Hillary Clinton are specialized in doing that type of job.