It's not the money, in short, it's the hypocrisy of both the Clintons and their followers on the matter.

Doubling your normal fee for a speech to an international banking congomerate, because you can, would all seem within the rules of the game. Doubling your normal fee for a speech to a charity, because you can, is a little unseemly.

That's a perfect example of why liberals don't and never will understand economics. They wish to interject emotion into a scientific equation. Fantasies like "living wage" and stuff are the economic equivalent of asking gravity to lighten up on minorities, children and the elderly in physics. The real world just does not work that way.

Then again, Nancy wasn't a United States Senator running for president, either. And it was a straight out corporate speech, not a charity fundraiser.

True 'nuff. And yet, the idea that clinton made a huge profit here... far larger than Reagan did... is beyond question. And there's the rub; Reagan's followers, at least, never called proft a dirty word.

No doubt. And Reagan was roundly criticized for cashing in this way; no president had done it before.

Then again, Nancy wasn't a United States Senator running for president, either. And it was a straight out corporate speech, not a charity fundraiser.

From New York Times, Oct 26, 1989:

Former President Ronald Reagan told Japanese audiences today that he welcomed Japanese investment in the United States and that Sony's recent takeover of a big motion picture studio might even ''bring back decency and good taste'' to American movies...

Mr. Reagan arrived here on Friday as the guest of the Fujisankei Communications Group, a news media conglomerate whose owners are politically conservative supporters of the former President and his policies. The group is paying more than $6 million to bring Mr. Reagan and his wife, Nancy, to Japan, including a $2 million fee to Mr. Reagan himself.

I'll respectfully disagree with the previous commenter, however. I don't have a problem with Clinton making oodles of money. He should be allowed to charge whatever the market is willing to pay for his services. As Dr. Joyner mentioned, this charity made the decision to pay over and above to ensure that it was Mr. Clinton and not someone else who spoke. If money was the issue, they could have chosen someone less expensive.

Let's apply to them the question that gets applied to CEO's... What on earth have they done to merit that kind of income?

That such standards have not been applied to them by the ones screaming abotu CEO pay, tels me all I need know about the left and double standards.

And liberal Mccain is now running around trying to destroy CEO salaries. What a crazy world that any "conservative" can support such stuff.I guess it's just a defense election - don't let the Dems score.