We previously discussed Hillary Clinton’s claim that she and Bill understand economic hardship because they were “dead broke” after leaving the White House. The claim has been widely ridiculed after it was shown that within one year, not only were legal fees paid off by supporters but the Clintons amassed nearly $12 million. What is most striking however with the coverage of this statement and the problems in Clinton’s book is, again, the lack of much neutral coverage in the media which has become robotically programmed along liberal and conservative lines.
As we discussed earlier, Clinton was using the legal fees to claim that she and Bill were virtually indigent and struggling to pay for the tuition of Chelsea and their mortgage. However, these were heavily Democratic firms that would never have pursued the Clintons for payment. This was debt on paper only. Politicians in Washington routinely run up such debts that are paid off by friends and lobbyists in fundraisers. Indeed, there was coverages at the time on how lobbyists and supporters were lining up to pay off the Clinton’s bill to curry favor with the powerful couple. That reportedly happened within roughly a year.
When the Clintons left and filed their 2000 forms, they reported assets between $781,000 and almost $1.8 million — and liabilities between $2.3 million and $10.6 million in legal bills. However, the wolves were hardly at the door for those legal fees. In addition, Clinton was guaranteed a large annual salary and had promises of millions in speaking fees. Moreover in 1999, the couple bought a five-bedroom home in Chappaqua, N.Y., for $1.7 million and then in 2000, they bought a seven-bedroom house near Embassy Row in Washington, D.C. for $2.85 million.
Faced with a backlash over the clueless claim, Clinton insisted that “we’ve continued to be blessed in the last 14 years.” She repeated this spin later in stating “We were obviously blessed and worked hard for everything.” However, she still maintained that they “fully appreciate how hard life is for so many Americans.” It is hard to see how this life lesson was learned while the couple was racking in millions while friends paid off millions in debts and secured their loan for a mansion in New York.
The Clintons rank as one of the richest couples ever to occupy the White House. USA Today reported “former President Bill Clinton, has made millions on lucrative book deals and more than $100 million on the speaking circuit. Secretary Clinton has recently begun to earn that kind of money as well.”
As with Romney’s disastrous “47 percent” statement , it is amazing to see candidates (particularly notoriously scripted candidates like Clinton and Romney) make these mistakes. This is a comment which is likely to be replayed for months just as Romney’s comment was replayed. For people who are struggling to pay their mortgages (and do not have Terry McAuliffe to pony up the scratch), Clinton’s claim of being broke will reaffirm the view that Clinton lacks authenticity and honesty. It was also remarkably dim to even try to suggest some “rags to riches” or “hard times” narrative.
While Democratic sites have struggled to somehow convince people that Hillary really was dead broke, the Pultizer Price winning organization Politifact found her statements largely false and implausible. Some of the pro-Clinton reviews of her book seem to take the flaws pointed out by others and convert them into curious strengths or at least excusable half-truths. The breathless pro-Clinton review by Sharon Poczter in Forbes is an example. Poczter writes of Clinton’s book Hard Choices:
[Her] book is not a completely truthful account of everything that has happened. It can’t be and it’s not meant to be. It’s an autobiography. It is a personalized account of what happened, written by a politician in a political way. By construction, this means it may not be the entire truth.
It is a depressing spin that we now do not expect politicians to be truthful. They get a type of moral Mulligan on the truth because that is their nature. I actually thought that autobiographies were reviewed on the basis of their honestly and completeness. Instead, Poczter heralds the book as showing “how much she loves her country.” Indeed, one of the most important aspects of the book for Poczter is not the discussion of Bergdahl or Benghazi but how the jacket of the book shows Clinton smiling and laughing and that the book (which she concluded is less than truthful) was Clinton’s brave stand that “she will not make the mistake of letting others be in control of how people see her.” It is a telling measure of our review of candidates today that the fly-leaf is highlighted as the counter to criticism of the content of a politician’s book.
Then conversely on the conservative side, commentators are returning to conspiracies of how Clinton is behind every catastrophe since the Hindenburg. Ironically, the hate is so great, that her critics tend to inflate her role and significance in many of these crises. The result is the usual “night and day” coverage between the liberal and conservative media. It is either spin or attack. We have lost the core of independent coverage. People want to watch news that is an echo-chamber of their own views and follows stations and blogs that give them a reaffirming narrative. The result is not magnify the hate on both sides and push people away from any fair dialogue. Clinton consciously put out this image and narrative as part of the rollout for her book (and possible campaign) and the statement is worthy of ridicule. However, like all contemporary issues it must be cycled through partisan spins in the media. It is possible to criticize Clinton for her statement or her book without supporting the other side. Yet, as with the Romney statement, it is either radio silence or endless chatter depending on your source for news. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Richard III (my favorite Shakespearean play) when the Queen mother explains to her daughter-in-law how to hate:
Compare dead happiness with living woe;
Think that thy babes were sweeter than they were,
And he that slew them fouler than he is.
Bett’ring thy loss makes the bad-causer worse;
Revolving this will teach thee how to curse.
HILLARY CLINTON: WARMONGER FOR THE BANKSTER ELITE
Hillary Clinton: Mass Murderer / Supreme War Criminal
She is owned by the same banks and corporations as Obama and Bush
From Iraq to Libya Hillary Clinton has been an unabashed imperialistic hawk & her presidency would ensure endless war
Murder for Money
She should be in prison
http://www.infowars.com/hillary-clinton-warmonger-for-the-bankster-elite/
Thus far the conversation regarding the Clintons’ wealth has focused on whether they were “broke” before they amassed their generational wealth. The source of this wealth has been glossed over as “speaking fees” and “book deals.”
But where have these millions upon millions upon millions of dollars come from?
(Hint: it wasn’t from teachers’ unions)
And what did they do or promise to do in exchange for this massive wealth?
(Hint: watch either speak for ten minutes and try to argue- with a straight face- that it was for their eloquence).
There is no way Goldman Sachs repeated dishes out a quarter million dollars a pop to hear a Clinton drone on. But in exchange for past and/or future presidential “favors”?
What a bargain!
First things first. IF elected president, Hillary will renovate the White House.
Taxpayer funded of course. Give her your email address for further rectification.
Dredd wrote “Only, Ted Cruz was not born in the U.S. (Calgary, Canada) so he cannot become president”
If that were the only factor, John McCain would also not have been eligible, given that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
I believe Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth and that’s all that matters. The definition of “natural born Citizen” does not solely mean “born on U.S. soil.”
leej, Hillary got off on the wrong foot with these people when she said something about not baking cookies.
Paul then I assume you also complain about Paul Ryan who has had 3 concussions – by his account.
leejcaroll – does Paul Ryan have memory problems when asked questions by Congress? If so, then the answer is yes.
Nick, You might be in for some serious Hillary bashing for the rest of your life. If she runs she probably wins, and could very will serve two terms. After that you can bash her for her mistakes while she was in office . Some have been bashing her since 1992 and continue to do so. Imagine a whole lifetime of demonizing Hillary Clinton…..
What disturbs me is your bias in the article, Professor Turley. You say “The Clintons rank as one of the richest couples ever to occupy the White House.” but then report not on while they were in the WH but after “former President Bill Clinton, has made millions on lucrative book deals and more than $100 million on the speaking circuit. Secretary Clinton has recently begun to earn that kind of money as well.” You would not let that go if a witness gave that contradictory account.
You rely on speculation about “these were heavily Democratic firms that would never have pursued the Clintons for payment. This was debt on paper only.” But you don’;t know if they did or did not pursue them. Any other person is presumed to owe a debt for which they received services. Until and unless it is paid or wiped out they do in fact owe the debt.
Her statement was true, maybe hyperbole with “dead” broke but you report the numbers: When the Clintons left and filed their 2000 forms, they reported assets between $781,000 and almost $1.8 million — and liabilities between $2.3 million and $10.6 million in legal bills. They were in serious debt by your own account.
Yes, they are wealthy, every president has taken in massive amounts in speaking fees, their pensions, etc as well as book royalties. (As for the royalties do you complain about how much Stephen King or J. Rowling has made on their books, or find it unfair?)
Their are reasons to take issue with Mrs. Clinton. People, like with everything else political these days, seem to either like her or hate her.
Your article uses some of the same tilting of the truth to paint her as a liar. That is not the case as you prove with your numbers and tense(s) (former president makes vs how much owed when they left the WH)
(As for the autobiography the reviewer is right, they are personal accounts and will be colored by the experience of the autobiographer. The sad part is, and I agree with you, that it is expected that if a politician’s mouth is moving or their finger writes, it is most probably not truthful.
I’m ready for some serious Hillary bashing the next couple years. The first time she thought she was going to be crowned. This time she’s using her “Poor me” act. That act has worked w/ women in the past. But, not w/ men.
Perspective.
TheSaucyMugwump
“robotically programmed along liberal and conservative lines”
Liberals paint those who disagree with them as racist, homophobic, and/or Islamophobic, while conservatives paint those who disagree with them as un-American, un-patriotic, and/or socialist / Marxist.
Both believe that anyone who disagrees with them belongs to the other side, refusing to believe that there are nuanced positions between far-left and far-right. Both have accepted Bush the Younger’s premise that everyone is either with them or against them.
Both parties are highly-paid toadies of Wall Street. Neither party is responsive in the slightest to the needs of the middle class.
Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz are the same, unqualified candidates who desperately want the job. Joe Biden and Rand Paul, the next tier of candidates, are party buffoons.
We are doomed.
=====================
That is about the size of it.
Only, Ted Cruz was not born in the U.S. (Calgary, Canada) so he cannot become president.
The Rehtrib (Birther backwards) party will try in vain on that one.
Does the Cantor syndrome mean that all of Hillary’s fabulous wealth will not do her any good?
Cantor spent more on steak dinners than his opponent spent in total.
“robotically programmed along liberal and conservative lines”
Liberals paint those who disagree with them as racist, homophobic, and/or Islamophobic, while conservatives paint those who disagree with them as un-American, un-patriotic, and/or socialist / Marxist.
Both believe that anyone who disagrees with them belongs to the other side, refusing to believe that there are nuanced positions between far-left and far-right. Both have accepted Bush the Younger’s premise that everyone is either with them or against them.
Both parties are highly-paid toadies of Wall Street. Neither party is responsive in the slightest to the needs of the middle class.
Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz are the same, unqualified candidates who desperately want the job. Joe Biden and Rand Paul, the next tier of candidates, are party buffoons.
We are doomed.
“Propaganda is the troof.” – Anonymous
“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”—Bush II, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005
Propaganda is the tool for politicians (“my line of work”).
For Hillary it is all spin 24/7. She is so used to telling lies that she no longer knows what the truth is. I am surprised that with her memory lapses and concussion she was able to write the book.
Silly politics.
Meanwhile the 11th Circuit made an interesting decision in a case of first impression.
It held that cell phone records can only be searched after obtaining a search warrant and having probable cause (Warrantless Searches – Unreasonable – 2).
Meanwhile, the D.C. Circuit ruled that torture is within the scope of employment of government officials (Allaithi v Rumsfeld).
Time to go on a fact finding mission…..The truth is out there
Indeed sad it is. If only people would open their eyes and see that both our major political parties are two sides of the same coin. Money and riches for themselves and favored friends. The only difference is who the friends are.
Sad state of affairs in the US.