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.
Paul C. Schulte
Dredd – a militant church is far different from a military church.
“The military chaplaincy … is faced with a more diverse laity than ever in the past … In the US military, Protestant and Catholics were the original clergy appointed by George Washington. Abraham Lincoln opened the military chaplaincy to the Jewish faith. This Judeo-Christian or even “god”-only focus will no longer fulfill the mission.” (MAAF).
leejcaroll – Hillary go to answer at Congressional hearings is “I don’t remember” or “I don’t recall” that is why I am concerned about her memory.
Karen I don’t think any couple that makes it to the WH, at least in recent memory has not been wealthy. We don’t have any paupers who have run.
Karen, It is all hearsay. There’s a reason hearsay is not admissible in court..
Paul One morning show just showcased a girl who was homeless all thru school but she is going to GW. University. Another lifetime story profiled a girl homeless to Harvard. Just because you get into a toop notch school does not mean you come from money.
re the relative comment I was replying to saucymugwump and his “amendment.
You dpon;t like what Secretary Cklinton said so you say does she Paul Ryan also have memory problems. I don’t know if he does or does not I haven’t bothered to google it but neither does Mrs. Clinton just because you don’t like what she said, or didn’t say that you wanted her to say.
Paul C. Schulte
Dredd –
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.
These statements do not make sense.
=====================
Good.
If you start comprehending I have failed.
From a book:
(The Virgin MOMCOM – 6, quoting from “The Spiritual Industrial Complex”).
Dredd – a militant church is far different from a military church.
Karen – I have been out of the dating scene for so long that I wouldn’t have the faintest idea how to get back into it.
Dredd,
Thanks for the link. I’ll stop my Haldol and revisit it in a few days.
Paul C. Schulte
Dredd – you asked who wanted links and I answered.
==================
Ask Karen S or Steve Kellam.
Steve Kellam,
The Answer:
(Link in comment above).
Hillary, as a member of the duopoly will continue in the traditions of Bernays, as have her predecessors and as will those after her.
Paul:
I think Dredd is talking about the Siege of Maarat, in which starving Crusaders were accused of cannibalism after they ran out of supplies.
There are many tragic events of cannibalism out of desperation, such as the Donner Party.
What he neglects to mention is that the Muslim Expansion engulfed the Middle East and part of Europe, killing multitudes of Christians. That is the source of the Moorish architecture in Spain and Portugal. That is what triggered the Crusades in the first place. You know, the whole “Christian slaves rowing galleys” thing.
And, yes, in the time of the Iron Maiden, there were a lot of non-cannibal savagery that took place. It is anachronistic to pretend that today’s standards applied.
Now, let’s move forward several centuries to today, and let’s compare Sharia Law and Islamic Extremism, embraced by every single Muslim country on Earth with modern Christianity. (Turkey and Dubai and Jordan were rather secular, but Turkey is now overrun with Extremist riots, Dubai is slipping. Saudi royals have the unique ability for the males to live completely hedonistic lives while the females are locked away and imprisoned. See the King of Jordan’s ex-wife’s pleas for the release of her daughters.) When pressed, I can come up with Waco as an example of Christian violence. But it was not condoned by our country, and is specifically an example of an insane cult. Other than that, I’ve got nothing. As far as I know, Christians haven’t stoned adulterers in centuries, but it happened in Saudi Arabia this morning, and every morning.
Steve Kellam
Dredd,
“Check out the crusades and cooking infants over camp fires after “lovingly” killing all the adults in the villages.”
Interesting. Look on the bright side, cooking infants would leave a smaller carbon foot print than cooking a much larger lamb, goat or adult. They were “green” crusaders fighting for God and Mother Earth.
Oil-Qaeda? Wow. 100 Million by 2030 – rut ro.
As for Rafael Castro, you should have a conversation with him. A sincere, genuine man that is one of the most passionate advocates for the United States, the Constitution and American exceptionalism.
His love and passion for freedom comes from witnessing a communist dictatorship with his own eyes. Many Cuban-Americans share his views and passion. Perhaps we should all take a moment to stop and listen to what they have to say as they know what they are fighting against and what they are fight for.
========================
So, you are off the turrist propaganda and back into the communist propaganda now in the U.S.eh?
Who’s your daddy? Answer is here (The Matriarch of the Matrix – 3).
Give Paul CS some links would you?
Saucy:
“I’d also add: if your date answers her cellphone and it is not an emergency, terminate the date as fast as possible.” So TRUE. That is so rude, especially at a restaurant.
Great ways to judge a date:
1) how they treat wait staff and hotel employees
2) how they travel
3) how they deal with tangled Christmas Tree lights or lost luggage
4) how they treat a cringing or shy dog
5) how they treat children
6) honesty
Dredd – I am asking you. You made the claim.
Paul C. Schulte
Dredd – I want links.
=====================
Stop being intellectually lazy. Use “the google.”
Dredd – you asked who wanted links and I answered.
Hillary will continue the warmonger ways of the system, whether she likes it or not.
An example of a scholarly historical work:
(The Virgin MOMCOM – 6). This historian was the first to look over documents in the National Archives.
How do we know?
You have to sign in to view the documents.
Polls, as well as multiple interviews, illustrated that Annie’s daughter’s opinions were in the minority. The CIA, intercepted mobile phone calls as terrorists used captured phones, the boots on the ground, and multiple FOIAs proved that the attack on Benghazi (in Libya, and not in other countries) was a pre-planned terrorist attack that had nothing to do with a video, contrary to her daughter’s opinion.
We do not have polls to judge the Kennedy’s on their behavior to wait staff. So in that case, what we have is an anecdote from someone’s family member.
What would be different is if Annie’s daughter, for example, personally served with Bergdhal and could offer an insider’s perspective.
As a member of the armed forces, Annie’s daughter deserves our gratitude, but there are circumstances in which her opinion must be taken with perspective.
I hope this clarifies. . .
Dredd
Nick Spinelli
There are Christian nuts but they haven’t killed en mass like the atheists and Muslim nuts have in modern history.
=========================
“The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims, while incidentally capturing their markets; to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples, while blundering accidentally into their oil wells.” (Myth Addiction Is Establishment’s LSD – 3, quoting 1944 book).
Dredd,
“Check out the crusades and cooking infants over camp fires after “lovingly” killing all the adults in the villages.”
Interesting. Look on the bright side, cooking infants would leave a smaller carbon foot print than cooking a much larger lamb, goat or adult. They were “green” crusaders fighting for God and Mother Earth.
Oil-Qaeda? Wow. 100 Million by 2030 – rut ro.
As for Rafael Castro, you should have a conversation with him. A sincere, genuine man that is one of the most passionate advocates for the United States, the Constitution and American exceptionalism.
His love and passion for freedom comes from witnessing a communist dictatorship with his own eyes. Many Cuban-Americans share his views and passion. Perhaps we should all take a moment to stop and listen to what they have to say as they know what they are fighting against and what they are fight for.