Sarah Palin has reportedly raked in more than $12 million since resigning as governor of Alaska in July 2009, according to ABC News.

Over the past year, Palin's large paychecks have come under scrutiny by the media as well as by members of the Republican Party.

The ex-Alaska governor collected a $1.25 million paycheck for her memoir Going Rogue: An American Life, boasts an astounding $100,000 speaking fee, and will reap $1 million for each episode she shoots of her upcoming reality television show, Sarah Palin's Alaska.

More on how Palin fattened her wallet:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/13/sarah-palin-rakes-in-12-m_n_535489.html

Good. Now do some research into the dems who do the same kind of thing-ala the Clintons.

get in where ya fit in,, she is better as a spokesperson type than a politician,,

she is entertaining, if nothing else,(and it keeps her out of the white house) so why not earn her money there,,,,

Thanks for that completly useless information.

And she's doing a very fine job of keeping a whole bunch of folks at Saturday Night Live employed as well.

There's not a 'crap out there who's equal to a pimple on her asss ... INCLUDING Tina Fey ...

YOU betch'a

i don't believe anyone forced you to click on this thread.

She's just an entertainer now. What do you expect?

WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton earned nearly $6 million in speaking fees last year, almost all of it from foreign companies, according to financial documents filed by his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The documents obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press show that $4.6 million of the former president's reported $5.7 million in 2008 honoraria came from foreign sources, including Kuwait's national bank, other firms and groups in Canada, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico and Portugal and a Hong Kong-based company that spent $100,000 on federal lobbying last year.

Executives at many of the firms that paid honoraria to Bill Clinton have also donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation, according to documents it released last year as part of an agreement with Congress on Hillary Clinton's nomination as secretary of state. That agreement was aimed at preventing the appearance of any conflict of interest between the ex-president's charitable organization and his wife's new job as the United States' top diplomat.

In addition to Bill Clinton's income from speaking fees, Hillary Clinton reported joint holdings of between $6.1 million and $30.3 million in a blind trust as well as cash, insurance and retirement accounts worth between $1 million and $5.2 million.

I have to say that at least Mr Clinton didnt resign half way through his presidency and actualy achieved something besides getting a BJ. Its pretty pathetic that she should make so much for doing so little. I think most of us remember how good the economy was during Clintons two terms. He deserved all he got includeing Monicas pleasureing him.

Yeah yeah yeah ... right ... rant on, peaceboy ... Seems you cut Clinton a lotta slack for being the one to authorize transfer of OUR missile technology to Red China so they could make their missiles FLY STRAIGHT ENOUGH to target US ... the deal was made to let LORAL (google it yourself) transfer their technology to Red China - li'l 'campaign promise' or 'payback' for a 'donation' - seemsayin' ... just a difference in type, not in kind, from Ms Lewinsky's 'donation' to the 'cause' ... BTW, it would have been nice if Clinton had had the common decency to resign after being caught giving someone half his age a 'mouthful' while seated at his desk in the Oval Orifice ... Libs have NO sense of propriety or decency tho', so your position [sic] is hardly surprising.

I actually think this is one neat thing about capitalism..its like a jackpot of sorts. Some people will be fortunate enough to find a niche and capitalize on it. I have no issue with people earning their living and I think its earned so long as those paying for it wish to continue. We are worth as much(monetarily) as someone is willing to pay for us..basically. Palin is an interesting character and people are willing to pay for that,,,I say she should go for it, so long as she doesnt make decisions in my life,,,a living is a living.

Perhaps Kennedy and Lincoln and countless other adulterer presidents should have resigned,,, or is the only issue whether they are 'caught' ? Personal life and professional job performance have little to nothing to do with each other. I dont recall the last time at a job review that my employer asked if I was being faithful to my spouse...

Not that I swing that way but I would give him a BJ myself if we could have our old economy back ya know a defecit that got smaller instead of bigger and more jobs than people seeking them. wages keeping up with inflation etc etc.

Last week Discovery had its annual sales conference for ad buyers for all of its 13 networks. The presentation showcases all of their new shows across the different networks. That night the presentation was on Sarah Palin's Alaska.

Our source says "the whole thing [was] comical." Apparently the ad buyers were not impressed. This Discovery insider said, "When the promo was over, people (employees and buyers) were rolling their eyes, snickering, and even laughing. People were laughing and it's not even a comedy. No one took it seriously."

This person was concerned that given the lack of interest from ad buyers that Discovery would have to dump the show to "a crappy time slot" to cut its losses. They added, "Bottom line everyone thought it was a new all time low for Discovery. My guess is the show is going to tank big time."

Remember Discovery is paying Sarah Palin $250,000 an episode for this series. There are eight episodes, so she will be clearing $2 million for this possible disaster (TLC will be spending between $800,000 to $1.2 million per episode for the whole production). The ratings for her new show on Fox News Channel were already low (she couldn't even hold on to Greta Van Susteren's audience). Imagine how much worse she'll do on TLC where the audience presumably wants to learn something, i.e. the exact opposite of what Sarah Palin is known for. What's next for TLC, George Bush's Ranch?

When are people going to finally realize that just attaching a "big name" to a project doesn't mean it's going to work? The person hosting the show has to have some credibility in the field. I'm not sure Sarah Palin has credibility in any field.

Many people would argue that Palin did great ecological damage to Alaska and would like to do more by drilling all over it. So, getting her to host a show about the natural beauty of Alaska is a bit like getting Jeffrey Dahmer to host a cooking show for the Food Network. Yes, there's a big name attached, but is that the name you really want associated with your brand?

Watch The Young Turks Here
http://www.youtube.com/theyoungturks

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/discovery-insider-sarah-p_b_537178.html

although I love the turks and huff,, they dont tend to give both sides of the story. I am sure there are those who do and dont like the Idea of Sarah as a host,, but when you think about it , thats actually what she went to school for isnt it? Broadcasting? I think she would do better there than politics,, but she still has to start at the bottom and work her way in.

I find the whole Palin phenomenon as bizzare as a televangalist. It sends chills up my spine that people actualy buy the crap she is selling.

alot of people relate to her,,I think she was marketed as the potential head female after Clinton lost the nomination on the other ticket,, and from there they marketed her as a strong, no bull kind of woman with 'family' values(supposedly) and alot of people tied in with that image,,,( I personally found her crass and intellectually void,,but I could play devils advocate and aknowledge the other perception)

Not that you can really compare Clinton and Palin...