What gets me is that the original "argument" against paid Wall Street speeches is supposed to be that it could signal a conflict of interest. Supposedly the issue with Hillary was that if she gave speeches for them then once she was in the White House she'd be beholden to them. That's not the case with Obama. He's never going to hold elected office again so there's no way it makes a difference.
I had some Berniac on another page tell me how Bernie doesn't take paid speaking gigs. It gave me great pleasure to let that baby revolutionary know that as a sitting member of Congress Bernie is forbidden from doing paid speeches but he never corrects that misunderstanding because that doesn't play to his purity narrative.
I'm not really that into the hype over her speaking up on Twitter but the backlash against her is disgusting - and not just from trolls, there have been hit pieces in major publications as well. I'm not sure why.
Speaking of Obama (earlier in the thread), I see that Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are criticizing him for a 400K speech. I don't really understand why this is a big priority. Yes, you shouldn't be cozy with Wall Street, but who cares? Let him have his money. If they really think that Joe in Topeka is going to not vote for a Democrat because Obama gives a big speech to Wall Street, good luck to them.