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.
Annie, Yes, some posters have claimed to be atheists. Many of them no longer post.
Who would these self identified atheists here be? How would anyone know what their belief system is if the haven’t voiced it? I’ve never heard anyone here claim they were an atheist actually and IF if they did, it would not make them any nuttier than the self described Christians here.
There are Christian nuts but they haven’t killed en mass like the atheists and Muslim nuts have in modern history.
Saucy, You do realize there are just as many atheist nuts as there are religious ones, don’t you. We have a few here. And, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the North Korean atheists are just as dangerous, if not more as the Islam killer nuts.
Hillary can’t possibly be broke.
She took a $100k bribe from Tyson Foods.
She gave her broker, Red Bone, $1K and took out $100K.
(Adjusted for inflation, worth about $1.5 Million now).
She was home baking cookies.
If she were such a great investor, her $100K would be worth $10 Million by now.
And Martha Stewart went to Club Fed.
Call me stupid.
John – okay you are stupid. 🙂
on 1, June 12, 2014 at 1:55 pmTheSaucyMugwump
“Religious nuts should not be in government. Chief Justice Roberts is another one (not an a**hole, just someone with an agenda) for the way he is overturning precedent (Fox News seems to have misplaced its “judicial activism” rant).”
**********************************
Saucy, this I can agree with you on wholeheartedly!
John wrote “Now you know why the Founders precluded foreign allegiances by requiring the President to have two citizen parents”
Constitution, Article II, Section 1: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Research the secondary law regarding “natural born Citizen” and get back to us. I suspect you have no idea what that entails.
Nick Spinelli wrote “Ashcroft is a condescending, a-hole”
I’m not sure what I said that precipitated that remark, but I agree. Ashcroft is a great example of someone who should not be in government, i.e. someone with preconceived notions and an agenda. Religious nuts should not be in government. Chief Justice Roberts is another one (not an a**hole, just someone with an agenda) for the way he is overturning precedent (Fox News seems to have misplaced its “judicial activism” rant). I dislike both Obama and Bush the Younger for the same reasons.
The inmates have taken over the asylum.
Hillary will be elected by the inmates and her ideological soul mate is allied with Muslims in a treasonous effort to degrade America.
Now you know why the Founders established a Republic with a restricted vote.
Now you understand why de Tocqueville admonished against one man, one vote democracy.
Now you know why the Founders precluded foreign allegiances by requiring the President to have two citizen parents.
Paul C, Grimes is a she.
SWM _ SHE is going to need all the help SHE can get. Make you feel better. 😉
Saucy, I have a source in the FBI who had direct dealings w/ both Ashcroft and Reno. Now, this source is very conservative. But, he is a straight shooter. Ashcroft is a condescending, a-hole who treats staff like sh!t, and he and all agents who dealt w/ Reno loved her.
Saucy, I completely agree about the cell phone but that is a generational thing in large part.
Nick Spinelli wrote “You can tell just about everything you want to know about a person by how they treat their wait staff”
Never mind what dedicated Democrats say; you are 100% correct here.
I’d also add: if your date answers her cellphone and it is not an emergency, terminate the date as fast as possible.
Grimes has been elected statewide, and there is a democratic governor but Kentucky generally goes republican so probably would need points to make a bet.
Leej, lol.
Saucy, it would be something, but not the same ‘something’. 😉
I have a C note that says Grimes doesn’t win. I’ll give 2-1 odds. Or, I’ll do some research and give you points instead of odds, like in a football bet. Let me know.
My daughter never lied to me either unless it was when she was a teenager and I found beer in her laundry hamper. 😀
SWM, too bad. But we can hope for a Grimes win!
leej, I believe my brother. As far as I know, he has never lied to me. And, I’ve heard waiters and waitresses corroborate what my brother told me. The other part of the equation you posed, I’ll take the high road and say, “No comment.” Folks often forget, or have no clue, what I did for a living. Very smart people paid me good money to find the truth and expose lies and liars. That was my business, leej.