We have been following the bizarre struggle of Hillary Clinton to claim that she and Bill were “dead broke” after leaving the White House. Independent reviewers like Politifact have shredded the claim and the Clintons have become the fodder for commentators and comedians over the controversy. The Clintons made over $12 million in the first year after leaving the White House and they have made over $100 million from speaking fees and different events. CNN documented that Clinton earned $106 million by making speeches from the end of his presidency through January 2013. Hillary Clinton has pulled in $200,000 a speech and was criticized for receiving $500,000 in one week from Goldman Sachs . Yet, the Clintons have been doubling down on the claim like a bad gambler. Bill Clinton was brought out to vouch for Hillary that the statement is “factually true.” That resulted in a new round of mockery. We have discussed the controversy in terms of the interesting dynamic of American politics where exceptionally wealthy candidates struggle to identify with Americans struggling financially. The Clintons however will not accept that the pitch is simply not working. This week Hillary is again claiming to have been impoverished in a new interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel – a claim that even Germans find just as hard to swallow.
Hillary told the magazine that the couple was worried about not being able to afford college for their daughter and pay for a simple mortgage.The claim is based on legal debts that are common in Washington. It is well known in Washington that these debts to Democratic law firms is funny money and that these firms would have closed shop rather than pursue the Clintons for payment. The debts, as is always the case, was quickly paid off by Clinton supporters, lobbyists, and others interested in helping the powerful couple. It was debt on paper alone and both Clintons were looking at massive windfalls after leaving the White House.
However, Hillary told Der Spiegel: “Well, when we came out of the White House, we were deeply in debt because of all the legal bills that we owed because of the relentless persecution of my husband and myself, and he had to work unbelievably hard to pay off every single penny of every debt we owed. And we did.” When the magazine points out the fortune amassed by the Clintons from friends and lobbyists, Hillary responds “We are very grateful for where we are today. But if you were to go back and look at the amount of money that we owed, we couldn’t even get a mortgage on a house by ourselves. In our system he had to make double what he needed in order just to pay off the debt, and then to finance a house and continue to pay for our daughter’s education.”
The claim that they couple had “to work unbelievably hard” is not likely to sit well with many Americans holding two or three jobs to take food on the table. Being flown around in private jets and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a speech (or a million a speech for Bill Clinton) is not viewed by most people as working unbelievably hard. The common definition of hard work does not include speaking to adoring crowds and sycophantic lobbyists. I regularly give speeches around the county (for a tad less than $250,000 a pop!), but I would never claim to be working hard. My grandfather worked hard. He was a coal miner. That is hard work.
What is interesting is that the rest of the interview is quite impressive, showing Clinton’s intellect and knowledge. I remain fascinated by the desire to claim to have been a struggling couple after leaving the White House as a political necessity.
Jill, Now that you have come out against Warren, you could counter by putting forth a name. I remember you put forth the name of Buddy Roemer in 2012. There really was not much wrong with him other than his party had no interest in him.
Darren, Very will written analysis.
SMM, I’d like to rewrite that quote! If Clinton runs on an agenda of empowering working people-with an increase in the minimum wage, etc , all voters BS detectors should be out in force and no one should vote for her under any circumstances! Really! Nor should people vote for Warren, the real candidate of choice of the elites. She will not be any better for the people of the US.
Democrats are into saviors who lie to them. Please stop! For the sake of all of us please realize there are no saviors, only false brands which citizens need to see through.
Darren Smith: “But Hilary Clinton only needs to push the right buttons that garner political support such as saying she champions certain issues and she can enjoy unfettered access to the White House. If she was truly a person of ordinary means and not elitist she would not ride the circuit raking in millions for her own benefit.”
The best exposé I’ve read about the corrupt – and corrupting – corporate-policy-lobby nexus or “circuit” in Washington DC is Matt Continetti’s http://freebeacon.com/columns/divorce-beltway-style/ .
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/24/opinion/begala-hillary-clinton/ “There’s no doubt that this is a populist moment. Americans worry about the collapse of the American Dream and the shrinking of the middle class. If Clinton runs on an agenda of empowering working people — with an increase in the minimum wage, equal pay for women, student debt relief, increased availability of child care, prekindergarten, and an end to tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas — few voters will care how fat her bank account is.”
ALL politicians, left, right, or in the middle, are liars, cheats, and thieves! Hill and Billary are just a couple of the worst liars of them all. Why would anyone believe anything either of those liars say? Because sheople are ignorant and don’t want to think for themselves, and they want to have “leaders” who will make all their decisions for them. Sheople will idolize and believe politicians who say what they want to hear, what agrees with their own biases and self-centered opinions. It’s part of why corruption, poverty, and war continue to exist and probably always will.
She stubbornly focuses on the debt and refuses to acknowledge that the debt was paid by friends and supporters.
Is that working hard? Having your cronies and political supporters pay off your debts? Being part of the political ruling class is hard? Because politicians are insulated from the problems faced by the private sector.
I sincerely hope she remains on this absurd path, because I don’t want someone with her well-documented history of lying to become president. We’ve had enough of that.
She just keeps digging herself deeper in this issue and at this stage would be better off to just stop discussing it and let the issue play out on its own.
I find it also rather telling how many on the left bash the 1% as to their accumulation of wealth by unconventional means but when it comes to Bill & Hillary Clinton there is near silence or even praise. This is a double-standard.
In fact, it seems the need to promote a particular candidate that is favored to do better in elections than the opposition allows, in this case Hillary Clinton, great deference in what would be labeled as elitist and money loving by a wealthy opposition candidate.
Moreover, how can those who claim that the Democratic Party is the champion of disenfranchised, poor individuals who have to struggle to live their lives disadvantaged by a glass ceiling created by the wealthy then blindly support a candidate who portrays a lifestyle and riches garnered due to their celebrity by engaging in speeches and other activities that ordinary people would never be awarded?
In the last election, much bashing was made against Mitt Romney on account of his wealth, for better or worse. But if wealth is so vile why is not criticized uniformly?
Then as to the notion of Hillary Clinton’s wealth being the result of hard work to relieve her of debt caused by millions due on legal fees: Ok, on that premise I can understand the want to end debt, but when the debts were paid off what was there any restraint exercised by Hillary and Bill in amassing multiple millions of dollars beyond this? At what point is it enough for them, especially when the argument is made against wealthy people by the left of the same issue, that the wealthy accumulate millions of dollars more than what is needed for a ordinary life and therefore they are taking from the lives of the poor.
But Hilary Clinton only needs to push the right buttons that garner political support such as saying she champions certain issues and she can enjoy unfettered access to the White House. If she was truly a person of ordinary means and not elitist she would not ride the circuit raking in millions for her own benefit. One only has to look at what became of the lifestyle such as President Truman when he left office. He returned to that of his former station in life, very modest by today’s realities of a rich retirement by prominent federal politicians. In fact, President Truman, in retirement, was offered by a large corporation to be its chair. Truman refused citing that they were mainly interested in the title of his former office and that it was not for sale. And here we see where a politician’s celebrity and former offices held are the main aspect that is being sold in the speaking circuit and the book deals. It is not the ordinary citizen or taxpayer that is receiving the benefit of these.
Paul, it’s far more than just one comment with Romney, get real. If Clinton is being criticized because she claims they were broke, even with their earning potential, Romney will never appeal to the common working class in enough numbers. Those such as yourself will accept him, older white males, but you’re a smaller voting block.
Hillary’s big problem now is 1) lying through her teeth 2) she is now in the 1% of the 1%. She has no street cred. The only thing she has going for her are her ovaries.
The 47% comment will haunt Romney forever. He has no chance of winning…but hey, nominate him!
Annie – considering the baggage that Hillary is carrying, I do not think one comment is going to sink him.
Paul,
Excellent article. Thanks for the link.
I’d rather have Elizabeth Warren, Hillary would win, but so would Warren.
Annie – I think Romney could win on the slogan “I told you so!!!”
I love Hillary, I mean, how can you not love a person that hates the 1st amendment, loves war, loves bankers, heck, just loves money. I love her, please make her queen for life.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/hillary-clinton-flaunts-her-surveillance-state-baggage?page=0%2C1&paging=off¤t_page=1#bookmark
Some of us out here West of the Alleghanies who do not like the Kennedys, also do not like the Bushies. In fact we do not ascribe to the Harvard and Yale East Coast Snobbery and do not like listening to people who do not speak the Kings English or American. Hillary made a mistake in moving to NY. She does not have my vote. Neither does Elizabeth Warren, daughter of Earl. I will vote for someone like that guy from Maryland or someone from the West or Midwest. We do not need Fatso from New Jersey.
The new Kardasian.
I wouldn’t equate Hillary with Hooper however.
Hooper didn’t lie.
Hooper: Mr. Vaughn, what we are dealing with here is a perfect engine, an eating machine. It’s really a miracle of evolution. All this machine does is swim and eat and make little sharks, and that’s all. Now, why don’t you take a long, close look at this sign. [refers to billboard graffiti] Those proportions are correct.
Mayor Vaughn: Love to prove that, wouldn’t ya? Get your name into the National Geographic.
Quint: I’m not talkin’ about pleasure boatin’ or day sailin’. I’m talkin’ about workin’ for a livin’. I’m talkin’ about sharkin’.
Hooper: Well I’m not talkin’ about hookin’ some poor dog fish or sand shark. I’m talkin’ about findin’ a Great White.
Quint: You’ve got city boy hands, Hooper. You been countin’ money all your life.
Hooper: All right, hey, I don’t need this. I don’t need this working-class-hero crap.
Quint: Maybe I should go alone.
This is a woman who did her college paper on Alinsky, she is not a moderate. However, she will do what it takes to get elected. Lying is just part of the game for the far left. While she thought she was going to get Obama’s support in her Presidential run, she was a team-player. Now that she and Obama are on the ‘outs’ she is starting to throw him under the bus.
SWM, So coy. This isn’t Meet The Press for chrissake. You know what I mean. Why aren’t you encouraging Warren to run? I do know why. She would be George McGovern.
I think if the Queen were anointed President, as his her birthright, she would blossom into the socialist she truly is. Bubba is a moderate, the Queen is pretty radical, and very dangerous.
randyjet wrote “simply gratuitous Clinton bashing”
How about some Obama bashing then?
randyjet wrote “Skillings went to prison”
Actually, that is Jeffrey Skilling who went to prison in 2006. And then had his sentence reduced by ten years in 2013 by the Obama administration.
Everyone needs to read the article, “Where’s the fraud, Mr. President?” (blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/12/13/wheres-the-fraud-mr-president). It tells of the Obama administration’s complete lack of prosecutions of Wall Street criminals.
Clinton pardoned Marc Rich and Obama has done more of the same. Professional courtesy?
swarthmoremom wrote “I, myself, would prefer that she was less moderate.”
Annie wrote “I too wish she weren’t quite such a moderate.”
I am not at all convinced she is a moderate. She is an enigma who will be unveiled only after her anointing. Remember the photo of the White House gang watching Osama bin Laden being aired out? Hillary had her hand to her face, exhibiting an inappropriate degree of shock at public enemy #1’s demise. Bill and Hillary are chameleons who will do whatever it takes to assume the mantle of the presidency.