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.
Aridog – what a lovely long hair GSD in your photo. Great dogs.
The filter eats posts from time to time. You can’t have more than 2 links in a single post. Other than that, I have no idea what triggers the filter.
If a post gets eaten, try posting another comment asking for help fishing it out.
Anyone besides “he who refuses to comprehend” want links?
Dredd – I want links.
Paul C. Schulte
Dredd – so you couldn’t find any baby burning. Then an ad hominem attack on me. Hmmm, why am I not surprised.
================
Even more wrong than last time.
Deep seated bias engendered by being misinformed cannot be surprised.
SWM:
Are we supposed to believe Hillary is struggling when she paid off $25 MILLION in 5.5 years? (And had friends and donors lining up to help pay it off?)
“The Church, too, had her place in the feudal system. She too was granted territorial fiefs, became a vassal, possessed immunities. It was the result of her calm, wide sympathy, turning to the new nations, away from the Roman Empire, to which many Christians thought she was irrevocably bound. By the baptism of Clovis she showed the baptism of Constantine had not tied her to the political system. So she created a new world out of chaos, created the paradox of barbarian civilization. In gratitude kings and emperors endowed her with property; and ecclesiastical property has not infrequently brought evils in its train. The result was disputed elections; younger sons of nobles were intruded into bishoprics, at times even into the papacy. Secular princes claimed lay investiture of spiritual offices. The cause of this was feudalism, for a system that had its basis on land tenure was bound at last to enslave a Church that possessed great landed possessions.
(Catholic Encyclopedia, emphasis added). In that sense war and military service today, in some ways, are as they were in both Holy Roman Empire feudalism and earlier European feudalism” (American Feudalism – 2, quoting The Catholic Encyclopedia). When a church becomes enslaved, it takes on a different personality and tends to get crusade fever.
The military church now is like that and more powerful than any before it.
Dredd –
These statements do not make sense.
Hi Lee:
Let me clarify about the “cookie comment.”
Hillary engaged in the “mommy wars”, seeming to slight stay-at-home moms. It came across like I could have stayed at home and baked cookies but had a life instead. The Mommy Wars ruffles feathers all the time. Stay at home moms think they are the best parents, and career women look down on them. Really, women should just support each other’s choices and try not to be judgmental about working or staying home.
When someone runs for office, they are supposed to represent ALL of us. Giving the impression that you have disdain for some of your constituents is not a wise political move.
I personally blew off her comment as just another shot in the Mommy Wars. Yes, she showed her flag on what she thinks about stay-at-home moms, but it is not as big an issue for me as her lying and incompetence in office.
Darren, Charlie Rose is also upper tier in my book. Number one, Brian Lamb of C-Span. I miss him. He was incredibly good, making the interviewee the center of attention and comfortable. You get people to open up and tell you the truth, what they really think, when they’re @ ease. Lamb was very content not bringing attention. I learned a lot about interviewing techniques from him.
SWM:
I only judge Hillary on the facts against her, which is not “bashing.” It’s the truth. She has a very long list of valid concerns about her history and character.
One of the things that I most despise about establishment politicians is lying. When you represent us, you had better be honest with us. Hillary has been caught lying on multiple occasions, which completely undermines public trust, regardless of political affiliation.
Lee:
I forgot to mention about autobiographies – you do expect to read personal opinions and views. But they are typically also judged on facts. Most autobiographies get hammered when the writer is not truthful about actual events and facts.
Hi Lee:
If you are interested in the Clinton’s tax returns during their years in the WH, here is a link to all presidents (and those who ran) tax returns:
http://taxhistory.tax.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns?OpenDocument
You will note that Hillary made a quarter of a million dollars working for the Rose Law Firm in 1992. They were already a wealthy couple when they arrived at the WH.
Paul C. Schulte
Dredd – you have failed to link to the cooking of children. Can you do that? Or is it more of your hyperbole?
======================
My hyperbole is the product of your imagination which is a product of your poor history and scholarship.
I can’t recall your ever posting a link to support your imagination, but you provide disingenuous links when you feel linky.
So your request will not be responded to.
If someone who supplies valid links requests it I will provide it.
Here is some holy history while we wait:
“Constantinople was taken, the Emperor deposed, and Baldwin of Flanders was set up in his place. The Sack of Constantinople in 1204 lasted three days. The great library there was destroyed when the crusaders ransacked it, then stabled their horses there. Ancient learning and literature was lost in that catastrophe, almost certainly including the complete works of ancient authors whose writings now exist only in tattered fragments. Some were entirely lost. The victorious crusaders amused themselves in the usual way, even though this was the capital of Christendom. As well as the standard bout of destruction, the men of the cross desecrated imperial tombs, plundered churches, stole holy relics, wrecked houses, vandalised libraries, destroyed whatever loot they could not carry, raped nuns, and murdered at will. They also set a prostitute on the patriarch’s throne in Sancta Sophia, the Church of the Holy Wisdom, the greatest Church in Christendom. Later a Latin (i.e. Roman Catholic) patriarch was installed, and the Venetians shipped off the remaining treasures to their own city, where some of them remain to this day. We have sympathetic accounts of these events, including one of an Abbot threatening to kill an Orthodox priest if he did not hand over a stash of “powerful” relics. The Eastern Churches still harbour bitter resentment about the behaviour of Western Christians during this time. Here is a modern Orthodox bishop on the subject:
The Western Church saw nothing wrong with its conduct. It is true that the Pope was initially irritated by the crusade having been diverted to attack Zara. But His Holiness was soon reconciled by a victory in his name over the Emperor, and any pretence that the crusade was ever intended to fight the infidel was abandoned. A papal legate, Peter of Saint-Marcel, issued a decree absolving the crusaders from having to proceed further to fight the Muslims. The new Emperor in Constantinople, Baldwin, wrote to the Pope about the sack of the city as “a miracle that God had wrought”. The Pope rejoiced in the Lord and gave his approval without reserve. Modern historians tend to take a different view. As Sir Steven Runciman put it “There was never a greater crime against humanity than the Fourth Crusade”.” (Crusades). I will spare more formatting so WordMess does not get inquisitional.
Dredd – so you couldn’t find any baby burning. Then an ad hominem attack on me. Hmmm, why am I not surprised.
I have been a fan of Terry Gross on NPR for some time. She is a very good interviewer. She does her homework and asks precise questions when needed and open ended questions when that’s indicated. Being an interviewer of people I rate interviewers, Ms. Gross is in the upper tier. Well, if you want to see how entitled Queen Hillary is listen to Fresh Air from today on NPR. The Queen got huffy because Gross had the temerity to ask her about her change on gay marriage. The Queen can’t handle even moderate interviews. When she has tough interviews you hear that creepy, psycho laugh of hers. This woman is not ready for prime time. She’s not used to being challenged. She folds up like a lawn chair.
Nick
One interview program I much enjoy is Charlie Rose. I have yet to see another program that offers an intelligent discussion free of commercial interruptions and the host not constantly interjecting and taking over the interview.
Such a program is rare in today’s American television.
TheSaucyMugwump,)
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.”
=========================
It means what the Supreme Court says it means.
The Panama Canal zone, where McCain was born, is like Gitmo, U.S. territory. Canada is not.
Furthermore, when the relevant parent is a citizen the child is a natural born citizen no matter where it takes place.
Cruz’s father is Cuban, but his mother was a citizen of the U.S. at his birth, so he can become president on that ground.
He is of Oil-Qaeda and his father fought for Castro but later recanted.
Some of you bash those whom you claim to “hate” Hillary. Hillary shot her own self in the foot. Like most politician’s, she and her husband found every avenue and opportunity to accumulate wealth, and they found others to pay for their debts. She is part of the 1%–as is Elizabeth Warren, who also considers herself “not rich.” What a joke. These women live in la la land.
As Sect’y of State, Hillary, did little to calm the troubled waters abroad. She lied about Benghazi and then made her ridiculous statement, “What difference does it make.” She also stuck by the false story line that a video caused the terror attack. She showed her loyalty to the Demo party not the people.
She defended bringing home Benghal, saying, “We always work to bring our people home.” Yet, she has not said nor done one iota about the Marine in a Mexican jail. Nor has she spoken out/moved to free the American woman being held in Sudan, who is about to be killed for marrying an American Christian. So much for her feminist loyalties.
At first, she defended the war on Iraq, then pulled back and said no to side with her political party.
There are still unanswered questions regarding shady real estate dealings in Arkansas, which have been swept under the table. All this and more will be brought out as she campaigns for prez.
How could anyone in their logical right state of mind vote for this person. Voting because of gender or race is a childish and ridiculous reason for voting for an individual, as we’ve learned with our present president. We need a confident, capable, astute individual who is cognizant of domestic and foreign affairs. Someone with courage who’s not afraid to cross party lines and work hard to bring/build our country in values, economics, justice, and liberty for all.
Is there anyone out there? I’m still searching.
Nick Spinelli
There are Christian nuts but they haven’t killed en mass like the atheists and Muslim nuts have in modern history.
=======================
Your history peeps lied to you on that too.
Check out the crusades and cooking infants over camp fires after “lovingly” killing all the adults in the villages.
“But lawdy we were hungry.”
Dredd – you have failed to link to the cooking of children. Can you do that? Or is it more of your hyperbole?
“the lack of much neutral coverage in the media which has become robotically programmed along liberal and conservative lines.” Thank you for speaking out.
When one of the richest women ever to live in the White House complains about hard times, she has earned a severe rebuke.
I can only hope that Ol’ Hil for the sake of not becoming poor again, chooses not to run. I would just hate to see her so poor.
leejcaroll,
How many people do you know that supposedly have that kind of debt can then turn right around and buy multiple million dollar houses? What a joke.
Lastly, I don’t hate Hil for her money, lies or cookies, I dislike her for her viewpoints. Same as our President.
Nick Spinelli wrote “there are just as many atheist nuts as there are religious ones … Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the North Korean atheists are just as dangerous”
Very good point. Let’s just keep nuts out of government (I actually added the “religious nuts” sentence at the last second and didn’t proof-read). Mao was the greatest mass killer in history, with some people believing that he killed almost 100 million. If one adds deaths due to Chinese communism, Bolshevism, Nazism, and Genghis Khan, the number of deaths probably nears 200 million. By the way, don’t use Stalin as the figurehead for Bolsheviks; Molotov once opined that Stalin was “like a lamb” compared to Lenin.
Though I will quibble about North Korea. That’s actually closer to Henry VIII’s government, a dynastic one which many people confuse with communism.
I would almost classify Bolshevism as a religion given how crazy they are.
“There are Christian nuts but they haven’t killed en mass like the atheists and Muslim nuts have in modern history”
Don’t even get me started on Islam. I would ban the face veil in all public buildings and refuse to allow women to drive or have official photos taken with a veil. I would ban Islamic and Jewish methods of killing animals (dhabiha and shechita). There would be no sharia courts like we see in Britain.
The Borg Queen brings order. Prepare to be stimulated and assimilated.
SWM,
Ah yes, then Spinelli must be referring to them, but why even mention them if the no longer post here?