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.
Paul – because Democrats expect a standard of behavior from Republicans that they do not adhere to themselves.
dogfight – I’m with you on this one. Comments about Hillary’s looks are irrelevant. The actual issues are her politics and long history of documented mistakes, bad choices, and dishonest behavior. I could care less the skin color or attractiveness of the POTUS. I don’t care if they are a triathlete or confined to a wheelchair. Of average height or a Little Person. I just want someone who can do a good job. And won’t lie to us or use government agencies to punish his enemies. Or make a mess of foreign politics. Or continually engage in fraud and divisiveness.
old fox, Don’t forget, the Queen did not want ANY MILITARY UNIFORMS in HER White House.
Gates and Jobs were like many wealthy people. They are INCREDIBLY competitive and ruthless. They are also brilliant, visionary, and hard working. They would have made billions even if they weren’t so ruthless, based on the good qualities of being competitive, hard working, brilliant and visionary. Now, some think being competitive is a bad thing, I don’t believe either of you are in that camp. It seems to be mainly women who are “uncomfortable” w/ competiveness. Title 9 is slowly changing that flaw. So, take away their ruthlessness, are they then great moguls? Because then we have an agreement.
I remember reading in the book first published by an FBI agent formerly assigned to the WH, that the First Little Girl told him, “We don’t like cops.”
Everyone was instructed: “Do not make eye contact with the First Lady. When she enters the hallways or corridors, leave the area immediately.” He also explained that (before the Travel Office debacle) B. Clinton dismissed the entire middle-aged female Correspondence Office staff, most of whom had worked there for over 12 years.
So, Hillary clearly understands how “working stiffs” feel and she evidently enjoys to feel their pain. (She’s an S&M dominatrix.)
oldfox, Guess what? It is called politics when a new administration takes office, they get to hire and fire. Too bad you don’t like that fact. The only travel office so called scandal was when Clinton backed down since that office was being run and hiring GOP contractors to hire the planes for the press. North American Airlines was a GOP run airline at the time and offered FREE DRINKS to all the press people. On the new contractor airline, they had to pay for their own drinks! THAT is why the press howled at this! Try some substantial items to criticize for a change. Making the DC press pay for their own liquor bill instead of their paper or employers is NOT something I am upset about.
randyjet – if a new administration can hire and fire at will, why did Bush get all the flak for firing US attorneys?
She also wants to take everyone’s private guns. Security to this kind of person is a ridiculously strong government and every one else week and without freedoms.
Can’t help liking Bill but Hilary? No thanks, bitch. Keep on insisting you are poor and maybe we won’t have to see you as president down the road She’s definitely with NSA and big government, against the people.
Nick wrote “I would appreciate examples of whom you consider righteously wealthy”
I’ll just give one example. The Crescent Sock Company manufactures socks known as the “World’s Softest” in Tennessee. The socks are wonderful, really soft. And they are *Made In The USA*. The owners could have outsourced the factory to China, but they earn less money while employing their neighbors. http://www.worldssoftest.com
“Anthony Noel
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.”
So Anthony you think irrelevant cheap shots about a person’s looks should go unchallenged? Says a lot about the kind of person you are.
And what is neo-liberal grandiosity? Perhaps you could point out the characteristics of such and then show where in my comments I said things that fit this description? I am a liberal, but I made no claims to grandiosity and I said nothing that was grandiose in any way.
What is amazing to me is that you already have me pegged politically after three comments, none of which actually contained any statements about my actual political philosophy or views on any political issues. Anyone with an ounce of intellectual integrity and commitment to accuracy and debating the merits of a subject would have made comments similar to what I offered. They would have done so regardless of what political views they may hold. Honest debate and discussion does not include making insulting remarks about a persons looks nor misrepresenting the facts.
I guess Saucy and Paul do resent people who work hard, produce something of value, and become wealthy. I would appreciate examples of whom you consider righteously wealthy.
Nick – I respect most people who have made a great deal of money. However, admit it, Gates and Jobs are robber barons. They used the same tactics that all the infamous robber barons used to accumulate wealth. For example, I respect that Oprah has lots of money, but I do not like her as a person.
randy, I know how FDR and Kennedy got their money. What is your point?? If you read what rafflaw said you would understand my point. What’s yours?
Nick wrote “The vast majority of people in this country do not resent wealth”
Yes and no. In the old days, someone had a bright idea, built a factory, employed lots of people, and became wealthy. No one objected because everyone benefitted. Today, a person has a bright idea, opens a factory in China, employs one or two people in the U.S., becomes obscenely wealthy, and starts whining over the taxes he pays. Lots of people object to that model.
Paul wrote “I put both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs in the ‘robber baron’ category”
Yes, especially since both companies outsourced thousands of jobs overseas. Jobs was such a bleep that when employees of his subcontractor, Foxconn, started jumping off the roof of the factories because of terrible working conditions, he did not immediately fly there and resolve the problem; he made weasel statements absolving himself of responsibility.
And then we have Google and Facebook, the business models of which depend on the theft of personal data for use in ads. Yet most users blindly continue using their products, often in a sycophantic manner.
The vast majority of people in this country do not resent wealth, all the class envy horseshit by Obama has not changed that, yet. But people are savvy. A guy like Gates, Jobs, etc. who worked hard and built something gets respect. Someone getting 250k a speech, just selling their influence, do not. Reagan was blasted by Dems for doing it and the Queen gets blasted for the same thing. When you belong to neither party the facts are clear.
Nick – I put both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs in the ‘robber baron’ category of wealth accumulation.
raff, How did FDR and the Kennedys get their money??? You are too easy sometimes, dude.
Nick, FDRs family got their money the old fashioned way, through war and drug, opium, sales and fought the Opium wars in China to keep selling the drug. The Kennedy family got their fortune started by financing the rum runners during Prohibition. Joe senior, then sold his stake in his bank and moved on to Wall Street where he lied, cheated, and scammed his way to wealth. Joe Sr did not break the laws at all since all that he did was perfectly legal at the time.
randyjet – don’t forget that Joe Kennedy bankrolled McCarthy.
rafflaw:
Absolutely, a Dem can become a self-made millionaire. That’s not the issue.
The problem arises when that self-made millionaire cries poverty, and tries to differentiate herself from all the other self-made millionaires, and claim that she is not truly well off. With a net worth of $100 million.
Any time a 9-figure wealthy person claims that they are not well off, they earn themselves a rebuke, and Hillary is no different.
She should not get a pass from something that would earn mass derision if a rich conservative did it.
It’s an absurd statement, and she deserved to be criticized for it.
Karen – you realize that Hillary is part of the 1%. How could an upstanding liberal/progressive vote for her?
Paul, if Warren opens a chain of coffee shops, she could call it Mochahontas.
P.S. I like Warren, especially for president.
saucy – really check out Warren’s background before you vote for her. Check out how she and her husband made their money. Very interesting.
No one makes millions of dollars by ‘dint of hard work’. It’s an old lie, and it’s good that it’s being exposed.
I would vote for BarkinDog over Hillary. You guys need to get him to run. Maybe the Koch Brothers would go for a dog to get their dog in the race.
Why cant the Democrats find some “failed haberdasher from Missouri”. That is what the East Coast Snob Historians (ECSH) call Harry Truman. I certainly don’t want anyone East of the Alleghanies or north of DC. None from Florida or California. I want someone who is anti war and will truly bring the troops home. Then send the troops home to a home for good. Then bring back the draft for real times of war when war is necessary– like if Mexico keeps sending us children. Or if the Midget in N. Korea drops a nuke on us. Or if Al Qaeda and Ben Gazi open up a jewelry store together in the Bronx. War is Hell. Hell hath no creation like a spurned woman. That’s why I don’t want Hillary. Spurned for a woman who will take a cigar. Hillary would drop an H Bomb on Monaco if she got the names wrong. Or if Bill went off there to the casino. But, I drift here.
Al, I doubt many northern Democrats who don’t like Hillary will vote for any Koch sponsored candidate.