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.
I heard today that the Koch Brothers are going to form a new party. They are said to be toying with the name Federalists. The Republicans may come over in droves as well as some Northern Democrats who don’t want Hillary. No one talks about Hillary being a carpetbagger. I forget where she went to high school but its a long sling between Arkansas and New York City. She does not even speak Yorkie. I wont vote for her. Monica maybe.
Annie, I like Warren better, personally, but I also realize that she will be called an inexperienced “Pocohontas” by the republican noise machine. We have already seen that here.
SWM – Warren is known in some circles as Fauxahantas.
Ok BarkingDog, woof out your stances on on the pertinent issues of today.
Quit focusing on a woman. Think about a Dog for President.
Annie – An update on Minnie Mouse
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-mn-ca-classic-hollywood-minnie-mouse20140622-story.html
SWM,
I really do hope Hillary doesn’t run. I would vote for her if she does run, I do worry about her baggage and I do so like what Warren has to say.
Karen,
Can’t a Dem work for their fortune? Not everyone can inherit from their wealthy John Birch founding father.
Annie, Warren said that she is not running and I believe that. Now if Hillary does not, I would expect her to change her mind.
SWM, insults of ugliness coming from Limbaugh of all people!? Ugh.
I think Democrats would be better served if they got behind Elizabeth Warren and nominated her, however as far right as the Republicans have swung, they wouldn’t get Hillary’s votes in any case.
I disagree with Hillary’s politics, and there are serious problems with her record as SOS. However, I’ve always considered her intelligent, and politically savvy.
I am at a loss as to why she would stubbornly double down on such an absurd statement, that she was dead broke, and earned $100 million through hard work (rather than political connections and interest peddling.) Has she been surrounded by sycophants and a fawning media for too long? She must have been emboldened because the media obediently glossed over her initial mega-gaffe.
The question is if the public is going to keep giving her a pass, besides a few jokes here and there.
If the general public lets this slide, then I will become a firm believer in brain washing.
Karen – just what was the ‘hard work’ that the Clinton’s did?
Static aside, democrats rejected Sec Clinton in 2008, and those reasons remain just as valid. She could not be bothered to count caucus votes, for one, a boring but necessary detail-oriented campaign task. The air of inevitability was another turn-off. None of that squared with her hawkish views, and democrats were left to make a difficult choice.
Whatever failures of the Obama Administration, America would likely have gone further into battle abroad rather than away from it under Sec Clinton. She would have pardoned the same war crimes. She would not have handed back the awful powers given to her by the Patriot Act and the AMUF. The anti-social conniption fits being thrown by conservatives would still have happened. It likely would have been worse; knocks against women are more socially acceptable. See the House votes on abortion since the “victory” of 2010.
And when America elects Sec Clinton, they are going to get two Presidents whether they like it or not.
To break America’s descent into oligarchy requires new leadership.
randyjet wrote “strict accounting rules, they were in FACT broke … referring to the pension”
Transition funding starts one month before the next president’s inauguration: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/26427
randyjet wrote “[JT] went on to dismiss those expenses saying that their creditors never expected to be paid”
Perhaps because he knows how Washington works. You obviously do not.
Do you honestly believe the Clintons apply for credit and rentals like normal people? Do you honestly believe that Bill Clinton received nothing for his pardon of Marc Rich?
Saucy, I see that you are against the US justice system. In YOUR view, Clinton is guilty until proven innocent. Do you have some PROOF, Clinton got something for the Rich pardon? All you have proven is your irrational hatred for Hillary Clinton and her husband. For the record, I do not like Bill Clinton, and think that the wrong Clinton was elected President.
Saucy, I see that you are against the US justice system. In YOUR view, Clinton is guilty until proven innocent. Do you have some PROOF, Clinton got something for the Rich pardon? All you have proven is your irrational hatred for Hillary Clinton and her husband. For the record, I do not like Bill Clinton, and think that the wrong Clinton was elected President.
Once again you cannot understand even simple things. The transition expenses are just that, and are NOT salary or personal expenses that the former President can pocket. Try arguing facts instead of hype and slander.
SWM, Vile comments come from both sides of the spectrum. When you’re not a member of either club it’s pretty obvious.
Wealth builder Suze says “Ya gotta go big or go home”
paulette – Chelsea is on the table as a player. She has a make-work job which she has not shown up to in some months. There are rumors she wants to get into the political game and is looking for a place to start.
If Hillary runs, Chelsea will be an asset to the campaign and not a liability. Probably a good thing for her if Limbaugh call hers ugly and rages about her again.
Paulette, I NEV ER talk about kids when they’re still kids. Chelsea is part of her mother’s campaign. She is an adult. Fair game. You can’t play the “Chelsea is off limits” now. It was righteous back in the 90’s when her old man was Prez. But, her immunity expired some time ago.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/chelsea-clinton-sandra-fluke-unite-over-rush-limbaugh-attacks/ Now, It probably benefits Chelsea that Rush Limbaugh compared her to an ugly dog when she was only 13 years old. Some people root for her successes because she was treated so poorly.
paulette92122 wrote “Nick ~ Chelsea shouldn’t be a part of this conversation”
Nick wrote that because of my earlier comment.
If Chelsea was living a private life somewhere, even making a bazillion dollars, then her private life would be off limits. But she often participates in her mother’s election activities and has hinted that she intends to be a political player in the near future. So she deserves to be a part of this conversation. http://nypost.com/2014/04/16/chelsea-clinton-says-she-might-run-for-office/
My grandmother had a saying about people who complained about being broke. She said: “They’re crying that they’re hungry with a loaf of bread in their hand.”
Nick ~ Chelsea shouldn’t be a part of this conversation.
Saucy, Chelsea and her hedge fund hubby just bought an $11 million suite in Manhattan. Think of kids her age who struggle. The kid is like her mommy, clueless. Her wedding cost $3 million for chrissake!