I have never understood the fuss over Hillary Clinton speeches. Until this January, I worked for a Fortune 50 high-tech Silicon Valley company. Each year, in the Fall, we held our annual conference for customers and partners where we showcased our company products. Our past keynote speakers have included President Bill Clinton, Malcolm Gladwell, and General Colin Powell. I personally attended the years Secretary Condeleeza Rice and Secretary Leon Panetta spoke.
Secretary Rice was engaging, charming, and her knowledge of football was amazing. She talked about her experiences, did a Q&A session with the moderator, and left. I think she was there for a total of one hour. I was really surprised at how much I enjoyed her session, especially considering how boring her public appearances were when she was in public life. In fact, sitting in the audience, I thought that she was one smart woman because she must have made herself sound so boring (and long drawn out and monotonous) when she appeared at Congressional hearings that they probably forgot the question they had asked her!
Secretary Panetta was also very charming and engaging. But because he had always been so in his public appearances, I was not surprised. His discussion about the night Bin Laden was killed was fascinating. I really enjoyed his hour long session, which again included questions from the moderator.
Not for one minute did I think that because they had spoken at our company event, that the company was somehow bribing them or that they had a conflict of interest or any such thing. All I thought was that they were important people who had witnessed history in the making, and were now making a living sharing these experiences. And I am sure they were paid a lot of money for these appearances.
And I don’t think anyone in the audience thought there was any quid-pro-quo involved.
So why the fuss about Hillary?
I don’t get it.
Edit: Panetta, not Pancetta! Darn auto-correct!
