Why does Tweedledink even bother to be specific on issues he knows nothing about? Just sounds like a dufas. Dufai?

Obama I love your idea in theory, but it's not thought out. I hate to say,it but that's kinda how I feel about you in general. You big pictures ideas are great, but you appear to have little grasp of the granularity of implementing them.

When a CEO behaves badly (er, I think you mean the company isn't doing so well, yet they pay the CEOs high dollar amounts) the investors can exericise their right to sell and get out. The market regulates itself on this one. Besides, shareholders expressing their disastisfaction with executive compenstation will spur bad press, which will initiate sell-offs, which will ultimately hurt investors.

A more realistic option is to stick to situations only where a company goes bankrupt and shareholders lose their shirts. In that instance where it makes sense to regulate the dispersement of assets so the CEOs go down with the company---but that's as far as this should go.

Regardless, Obama is trying to say to PA voters, "I get that you don't like the income disparity, so I am going to give you a forum to say so." I am not sure this is a responsible or realistic solution.

What is truly remarkable is there should be any controversy about the owners of a business having a say in the pay of their employees.

Obama? Here's a shareholder who's calling for checks on executive pay!

monster is talking about crime today and obama is talking about education and parents being responsible, hmmm.... i will take the responsible parent /education every time so that we don't have to get to the crime later down the road. just think if her husband had done what obama suggests, 20 years ago, than many of these criminals wouldn't be on the street. didn't hillary learn anything from marian wright edelman, her first boss? well, of course not they are no longer friends and why is that? because monster will do anything to win and would turn her back on her own mother or daughter if it meant a victory.

Excellent idea, but watch the corporate blowback. Bill will jump on this.

OK conservatives, why SHOULDN'T CEO's be accountable to the shareholders who are the real owners of companies?

If a progressive CEO made bad decisions and bankrupted his company, does he get to skip away with a zillion dollar bonus?

"Under Obama's legislation, shareholders could not veto a compensation package offered to an executive and would not place limits on pay. Rather, they would have a means to publicly express their position."

"This isn't just about expressing outrage," Obama says in prepared remarks. "It's about changing a system where bad behavior is rewarded so that we can hold CEOs accountable, and make sure they're acting in a way that's good for their company, good for our economy, and good for America, not just good for themselves."

It appears that this particular strategy is DOA. Shareholders would not have an opportunity to veto a compensation package...but they can "publicly express their position." In a nation where "publicly" expressed positions are completely ignored and disregarded, the rewards of "bad behavior" will continue on as the status quo. There isn't even a "go sit in the naughty chair" element to this "solution."

Whenever a candidate starts talking "crime" I think "pander time."

Edwards is 100% right on this one. Tackle poverty—crime will then be much less of a problem.

Boy watch the good old boys supporting Hillary and McCain really go nuts. This is not good news for
the vested interests of the world. This is what real change is all about. Let's see how Clinton spins this?
One thing we can be sure of and that is whatever Obama does it's not going to be traditional and that's exactly what this country needs.

Imagine that people who own part of a company actually having a say in how much the CEO is paid. I'm sure conservatives would Love this.

Carol

Why no mention of the Philly Payola story on HuffPo? Explains Clinton's confidence in PA, and why she is holding on to her money instead of paying her bills. True supporters of democracy should not have to buy votes.

Right now more boards decide on executive pay packages, not the actual shareholders. And it doesn't make sense to have companies going bankrupt and taking million or even billions of shareholder dollars down into the dumps, but the guys who made the decisions still walk about with multi-million pay-outs. I think this is a great proposal from Obama, we need to change this system, to bridge the gap between Main Street and Wall Street.

My problem with this is not the message, but rather the lengths Obama is going to. A non-binding resolution? WTF? I am tired of this nonbinding resolution crap coming out of Washington. Why pass legislation to let our feelings be felt, but not to actually do anything? Make the legislation binding! Corporate greed is killing this country, with the express consent of the current administration. What we need is to examine what a corporation is and find out why corporations have so much power. We cut taxes on corporations and the thiefs running them while keeping the tax burden on the people working and buying from the corporation. Shouldn't a corporation have a responsibility to the workers and the consumers rather than the executives and board members? Whose faulty is it truly? The people not questioning. Should the government get involved? Absolutely.

This will come as unwelcome news to all of Barry's Wall street fat cats. How funny that HuffPo isn't sharing the story in the WP about the givers that Barry really cares about. Seems HuffPo is not even bothering with a facade of equal treatment anymore.