Obama aide Valerie Jarret has insisted that Obama has been a change agent.
But is the messenger credible? Consider Jarrett's 2008 income report
$300,000 salary & $550,000 deferred compensation from Habitat Executive Services, Inc.
$346,000 for service on boards for various Chicago real estate interests
$76,000 from Navigant Consulting (represents governmental clients).
$146,600 from Chicago based USG corporation (building materials)
$58,000 from Rreef American REIT II, a real estate investment trust based in San Francisco.
$34,444 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.
So, defending the Change record is a politics insider that made it big with real estate interests and Big Business. Money tentacles everywhere..how will that play on Main Street?
Of course, Valerie seems saintly when considering the $5.2 million that Lawrence Summers made representing a hedge fund, or the $135,000 he got for a Goldman Sachs speech.
As for the group, 6 of the closest Obama aides made more than $1 million with most of the money sources being Big Finance.
It begs the question: Didn't a certain candidate say appearances mean something?
Source:
http://online.wsj.com/...
Update:
Valerie is a very busy woman and described as smart. But that's not the point of 'appearances matter'.
I think it's valid to question how much of Valerie's compensation was based on 'who' she knew rather than 'what' she knew.
Remember, in that same year that Jarrett was working for so many companies, she was also heavily involved with the Obama campaign...presumably a fairly busy job itself. What could she have been doing that would be so valuable to these companies? No doubt the cynic would answer, 'you mean..other than answering their calls?'
More so, it's entirely valid to state that one's world view is shaped by experiences and the input of those around you. So in a very simple sense, who have these Obama aides been hanging around with? Are investment bankers really a good feedback source?
Before you argue the point that being rich and successful should be qualifications for the top jobs, please note that 'success' is not always linked with 'riches'. And if you do make that link between wealth and qualification, consider how close your rhetoric comes to echoing another party...
Update 2:
As to my motives, it's to share some knowledge, hear some well-formed thoughts, and generally try improve our common government. It most certainly does not give me pleasure to find controversy, but I will not shy from it either.