Hillary Clinton clearly a highly intelligent person and also someone who closely follows scripted lines as part of “message discipline” that is the signature of major politicians. It is for that reason that I fail to understand how she can get herself even deeper into her earlier gaffe on being “dead broke” after leaving the White House. Clinton clearly wants to be portrayed as a working stiff and connect to millions of struggling Americans. However, it is falling as flat as Forbes tax rate. As we discussed, leading nonpartisan groups have derided the claim as untrue. What is interesting is that the mainstream media moved quickly past the comment. Now even mainstream outlets like ABC and CNN and Washington Post are shredding Clinton over her most recent comment that average people do not view her as part of the problem of the super rich and that “unlike a lot of people who are truly well off” she and Bill made their tens of millions from the “dint of hard work.”
The latest statement came in a Guardian interview when Clinton was asked about how “America’s glaring income inequality is certain to be a central bone of contention in the 2016 presidential election.” Clinton assured the interviewer “they don’t see me as part of the problem.” The reason is because “we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work.”
Bill and Hillary Clinton have reportedly made more than $100 million since leaving the White House. Most people who are working on road crews and waiting tables to put food on the table would not view Hillary Clinton’s receiving $500,000 in one week from Goldman Sachs for two speeches to be “the dint of hard work.” They would view it as the “taint of influence buying.” Likewise, as Bill Clinton was setting up a windfall of speeches, the couple used fundraiser Terry McAuliffe (now, the governor of Virginia) to secure a loan for a $1.7 million home in Chappaqua, N.Y. — one of multiple properties for the Clintons.
The Clinton camp is clearly worried about those liberals who oppose Clinton due to her support for the wars, including wars during her time as Secretary of State in Libya and Syria. However, the effort to convert her into a women of the people is alienating even the more liberal media and worse yet making her the butt of jokes. I watched as CNN, usually a favorable venue for Clinton, mocking the latest statement.
Clinton charges six figures a speech and has racked in half a million for a two speech combo. This is clearly good work if you can find it but it is not the basis for a modern Horatio Alger story. She risks looking ridiculous in this continued pitch of the common folk. Like a bad gambler at Vegas, Clinton seems unwilling to abandon the new spin despite rising losses.
In fairness to Clinton, her comment about “unlike a lot of people who are truly well off” was probably intended as a recognition that she is indeed well off but at least pays her taxes. It was intended as a new spin after the “dead broke” disaster. That is how I read it as opposed to saying that she is not well off. However, she quickly derailed again with the statement about how she is viewed by average people and how her massive fortune was the result of “hard work.” For the Clintons, who are legendary for message discipline and spin, it is a weird rhetorical rut. This comes after the disclosure of memos on reinventing her image and a meeting with the New York Times on future coverage of the presidential hopeful. The rollout is clearly hitting some self-made speed bumps.
What I find intriguing is the sensitivity of wealth in today’s politics with fantastically wealthy people like Clinton and Romney pitching their life stories to a majority of Americans who make less each year than their entertainment and vacation budgets. However, they need a narrative that will resonate with economic difficulties. Most of us would say that they should simply not try, but politicians need to show that they feel the pain of voters even if they don’t. Clinton is obviously not alone in his dilemma and this will not be the last such spin gone bad for our aspiring presidents.
The bigger point here is this is the Queens attempt to connect w/ “the normal” as the hilarious Julia Louis Dreyfuss calls regular people in Veep. It also shows that she is really unable to see the world outside of her own perspective. The Clintons hob nob w/ BILLIONAIRES. They do not have palaces or their own planes like these people…yet. So, from her perspective, she’s not that wealthy. We have had politicians who are wealthy who can truly connect w/ poor people. In my lifetime, Bobby Kennedy comes to mind. The Queen is so narcissistic she is unable to connect. And, she’s clueless how to even fake it, like all other successful pols. Some Dem should jump in RIGHT NOW. She is reeling in the first round, prime for another knockout like 2008.
randyjet wrote “the Clinton’s on the books in terms of assets vs liabilities were in FACT dead broke”
Bill Clinton earned a pension of $201,000 per year, plus he received substantial funding for a staff (no, not the one he used with Monica), and even Hillary could obtain $20,000 as the spouse of an ex-president. The table found at the following link notes that the GSA Allowance for the Clintons was $1,162,000: http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-249.pdf.
I could have one heck of a life with one million plus per year. And that’s not including the kick-backs for pardoning international criminals, e.g. Marc Rich.
I often disagree with JT, but in this case he is correct. Hillary substantially misrepresented her financial situation. You go right ahead and vote for your queen, but don’t even try to convince us that she was “in FACT dead broke” after leaving office.
Saucy, I suggest you address the FACT that even Prof Turley in his previous column admitted that in strict accounting rules, they were in FACT broke at the time of their leaving the White House. You simply dodge that point by referring to the pension which PROVES NOTHING. Now if you wish to delve into the Clinton’s finances at the time of their departure, THEN you can prove your point. Absent that, you have proved nothing at all. Even Turley had to say that their expenses and debts DID in FACT exceed income, and he went on to dismiss those expenses saying that their creditors never expected to be paid. How he knows this is beyond my ken, but he is better connected than I, but it does nothing at all to dismiss the fact that they owed more than they had coming in.
I think of and describe myself as a diehard liberal. And although it’s far too early to decide, should be run, I’m leaning toward Jeb Bush. My views are more aligned with Hillary, but I think Jeb might be better for the country at this point in history. But what impact could be have on the Supreme Court? That is a frightening thought indeed!
Wow, dogfightwithdogma seems to think s/he is the defacto cop of this blog’s comment section. Not surprising, given her/his more general air of neo-lib grandiosity.
Opps, less than a million.
Do they let people that make more than a million a year vote? How disgusting.
As Turley’s previous column on the subject pointed out, the Clinton’s on the books in terms of assets vs liabilities were in FACT dead broke. Sorry that they did not wind up like Grant since you would have preferred that I am sure. Of course, their prospects were far greater than a laid off auto worker which is why they could get a loan to buy a house, but last time I checked my accounting books, you only get to claim income when you get it. Unless Turley has now re-written those books as Bush and Enron did.
As for how they got their wealth and their relative position in their class, they are poorer than Bush or Romney who never had to work a day in their lives. As Einstein proved, all things are relative. Or as Mitt opined, all one has to do to get rich in the US is to ask your father for tens of thousands of dollars to start up a business. Simple, ANYBODY can do that! Then we have Charlie Gibson getting a great laugh, when during the Bush/Kerry debate, he took issue with Kerry’s proposal to increase the tax on couples who make more than $200,000/yr. He said that would mean a two school teacher family would have to pay more taxes! Even Bush had to laugh since his wife was a real school teacher at one point. So it is not only the politicians who are out of touch.
The whole point of this article is of course, the influence money has on politics. While I dislike that, the FACT is that simply giving speeches does far less harm than what Cheney did when he left office after being Sec. of Defense. He was hired by Halliburton as CEO, whose main client is the DoD. He was NOT hired because of his degree in engineering and reputation as being an excellent engineer! Another part of giving speeches is to simply allow the members of whatever association the chance to meet and talk with a celebrity. I seriously doubt the Hog Famers of America are going to be getting big contracts or consideration in a Clinton administration because she spoke at their meeting. There are plenty of things to criticize Hillary for, but let’s try doing it on substantial grounds of policy, instead of nitpicking.
Did you hear that Chelsea Clinton is following in the family’s footsteps? She recently said that “I will always work harder than anyone.” Horse manure clearly runs in the family.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10902554/Chelsea-Clinton-interview-I-will-always-work-harder-than-anyone.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/210292-romney-wants-hillarys-three-f-plan#.U6lkKq5gJuc.twitter “Here is the dirty little secret of the GOP donor class, i.e. the rich establishment bundlers who funded the recent presidential campaigns of the Bushes, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.): They are actively trying to recruit Romney to run again in 2016 — and Mitt is indeed interested.”
Reminds me of Cantor who spent more of his campaign donations on steaks at restaurants than his opponent spent in his entire campaign for everything.
But Cantor lost.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/hillary-clinton-dead-broke-comment-108204.html?hp=l1 “Good for the Clintons. Neither was born into wealth; they both held low-paying jobs at one time; and they both moved up the ladder of success. That is the American dream. (As for having rich friends, well, we should all be so lucky.)
But you can’t both be wealthy and poor-mouth. Not if you want to be president.”
Come on Al Zheimers. What is with the cheap shot about Hillary’s looks. You are entitled to your opinion, but not all opinions need to be shared with others. This particular one makes you look petty and vindictive. I wonder what some people would say about you if confronted with a photo over their coffee in the morning? Please don’t answer this rhetorical question. It would only serve to make you appear more juvenile.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/us/politics/bains-offshore-strategies-grew-romneys-wealth.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 I guess she means they pay ordinary income taxes like most people, and that they don’t have off shore accounts like Romney did. It is also in her favor that she earns her money giving speeches rather than running a job destroying outfit like Bain.
Monica’s book is coming out soon. The tentative title is: Life With Big Cigars: My Year With Bill.
Please do not be a schmuck and read this apCray by Hillary. I got through the first chapter and perused the rest. But, Jeso, get a copy of Glenn Greenwald’s book on the NSA and your America. It is called No Place To Hide. While you are at the Mall look in the electronic store for a Farraday bag for your Smartphone. If you do carry a Smartphone then be advised that all information which you can obtain off that phone belongs to all the snakes of the world. Keep checking your checking account too. It is not just someone at Target who steals your account numbers.
And please Jonathan: if you must run stories about Hillary The 8th, can you refrain from inflicting us with her photos? Jeso. I wake up early and open the blog and there is this ugly duckling named Hillary.
You need to pay closer attention Mike.Hillary did not say that she is poor now. She said they were broke, and therefore implied they were poor, when they first left the White House. I think this as a plenty dumb thing to have said and that she deserves criticism for it. But misrepresenting her comment as you have in your comment is no better.
Perhaps you would care to demonstrate the truth of your claim Justice Holmes with at least several examples of liberals who have criticized Clinton but ignored Obama on the topic of war? By the way, criticizing Clinton for her war support but ignoring Obama for his support on some non-war related foreign policy issue does not qualify.
She can solve this problem very simply by declaring that people should not be allowed to hold negative views of her, because people holding such negative views terrorize her supporters.
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
Unhappy with just $250,000 per speech Hillary still insists that she and the old goat, Bill, are poor. Who in their right mind would vote for such a narcissist? Have some fun. Make some fun of her but don’t vote for this tortured fool.
The liberals who don’t support Clinton because of her stand on “war ” often tend to be the same ones who support Obama no matter what he does.