And they said Romney lacked the common touch
But Hillary Clinton makes him look like a regular working stiff.
Every time Hillary opens her mouth lately something worse pops out of it. Did she suddenly get bad at politics, or was she already this bad in 2008? I can’t remember, but I think the depth of the problem is relatively new. Maybe in the ensuing almost-six years of high living and jet-setting since 2008, she’s lost whatever common touch she may have once had:
Clinton responded to criticism of her wealth in an interview with the Guardian newspaper published Saturday night by suggesting Americans won’t be concerned about the more than $100 million her family has reportedly earned in recent years because they’re not “truly well off.”
“They don’t see me as part of the problem,” Clinton said of Americans who are upset about income inequality, adding, “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.”
Clinton earned an $8 million advance for her 2003 book “Living History” and her publisher is rumored to have paid “significantly more” for “Hard Choices.” Additionally, Clinton reportedly earns $200,000 in speaking fees each time she makes a speech. Bill Clinton has reportedly made over $100 million in speaking fees since leaving office.
I guess that, in the circles in which the Clintons run these days, a person doesn’t have real money unless it’s in the billions.
And although these kinds of statements should hurt her—and especially her ability to be perceived as a person who can feel your pain—many of the liberals who want her to be the first female president and think she’s owed the job will support her no matter what she says.
[NOTE: To clarify, I happen to think that quote is incorrect in characterizing what Hillary said. She didn’t actually say that she and Bill aren’t “truly well off,” although she didn’t say they are, either. She left it somewhat ambiguous. But the idea that she somehow gets off the hook as a nefarious person of privilege because she pays taxes and others don’t (when in fact all the candidates—including the Clintons—have used perfectly legal tax strategies to reduce their taxes as much as possible) is absurd and off-putting, particularly after her “dead broke” faux pas in an earlier interview.
See also this.
As far as I’m concerned, Clinton can do with her money whatever she wants, as long as it’s legal. And if she wants to voluntarily redistribute it, that’s fine with me, too.]
Hillary is revolting and watching media types worship her is disgusting.
My big question is why would the Americans people let those two grifters back into the White House for more drama and sexual dysfunction.
Interns will be lined up outside Bill’s door.
Drudge headline: Hillary has a bad heart.
Who knew she had a heart?
And the Clintons do have a problem.
With record low bond and interest rates since 2008 it is tough to rely on that type of income.
“…and we’ve done it through dint of hard work.”
I would just love to hear her idea of hard work. Was practicing law while her husband was governor hard work? How about giving a speech for $200,000? Does she consider Chelsea’s lifetime earnings, including her $600,000 salary for one year at NBC, hard work?
It amazes me how Democrats always depict politicians and government workers as such committed, hard-working folks. As opposed to someone like Romney, who built a business.
The Clintons and their legal income streams remind me of how Edwin Edwards made his money between terms as Louisiana governor: He had consistent great luck gambling in Vegas. Damn, another $500,000 weekend for Edwin! and so on. Of course, when he got back into office he legally did all kinds of permitting, including casinos. Quite a surprise.
So Bill and Hill get paid lotsa lotsa for BS speeches and ghostwritten books. In return for past favors?? In hope of future presidential favors?
How it works.
I have never heard a more phony laugh out of a woman since Phyllis Diller.
I can’t see how that plays so well.
Dick Morris is a terrible seer when it comes to elections. However, he once worked for Bill Clinton and knows the couple pretty well.
He has a piece up on The Hill that dissects the Clinton’s finances.
“Her biggest blunder was one she’s committed before: pretending that she’s just like the rest of us. Amazingly, she claimed that she and Bill were “dead broke,” leaving the White House “struggling” to pay the mortgages for their two mansions and their daughter’s education. “It wasn’t easy,” she said, but “hard work” cured it.”
********
“Her joint tax return with Bill for 2001 showed a $16,165,110 income for her first year out of the White House.
Even before they left the White House, their joint income for 2000 was $359,000, scarcely in the “dead broke” category, particularly when you consider that the Clintons had none of the normal expenses that the rest of us do, such as housing, cars, child care, insurance, electricity, landscaping, healthcare — all covered by the taxpayers. All they had to pay for was dry cleaning, food and college tuition for Chelsea. Most people could make that work.”
Read it all here: http://thehill.com/opinion/dick-morris/209702-dick-morris-clinton-and-her-entitlement
Yep, they’ve had it rough. Just one of the peeps. 🙂
She and Bill are as industrious as Mr. and Mrs. Nicolae Ceausescu, truly they are.
All of them are highly functional gibsmedats: the bot flies of American politics.
DC is devolving into the psycho dramas of dynastic imperial Rome circa the First Century AD.
If you’ll recall, the old order was swept away by populist (appearing) rouges working the bread and circuses beat while the self entitled sons of Caesar and Praetorian government lived high and mighty.
All prior benchmarks for prudence and morality were shed like dirty togas.
Priority number one being a general taxation escape for those with pull and a centralized ordering of economic advantages based upon factions.
The DNA of immorality and perfidy hasn’t morphed much.
I want to say there’s no way this woman could possibly be elected president…but I’ve been wrong before.
And now we have another line of attack: the out-of-touch plutocrat angle.
How poetic would it be if Hillary were hoist on that particular petard?
BTW, I hear Harry Reid has it on good authority that the Clintons haven’t paid any taxes in 10 years.
That should become a viral meme.
Now what she says may all be true.
And it may not.
But what difference does it make?
She never had a common touch. She is a female gangster, bully, thief, and hanger-on. She has only ever been popular because her husband, people think, would be the real President or whatever, and because extreme radical deranged Feminazis want a woman on principle – whether she is good or bad being irrelevant.
In this case they will take a bad woman over a good man.
Lastly, she is a democrat; democrats are fascists, and all the fascists will vote for the fascist candidate.
Period.
Hillary a good politician? Common touch? Can you name even one time, one case of that?
I remember reading that when she was running for the democrat nomination in 2008, she had 50 million in a blind trust that she was moving around for legal reasons.
And she and Bill have doubled their money.
Sad state of affairs when 100 million doesnt buy you much
Once again the world’s Brightest Bulb becomes her own worst enemy. Throughout history elites have always known what’s best for us, the Dimly Lit. Totalitarians insist on redistribution and attendant social justice-that we are all the same and must drown together. However, when it comes to them, they continue to have the fastest cars, best vacations, best food, sleekest women (men), best hunting lodges (Nazi generals), largest bank accounts (all Social Democrats), and the best of all the rest. If we dare disagree or resist, they send for body bags.
Kit: All the money in the world doesn’t buy you enough when what you really want is power.
Hillary Clinton is a despicable, power seeking person who has literally embraced an ideology that rationalizes evil.
But she is symptomatic of a social pathology that has infected our nation.
In a brilliant article; The Decline of Western Civilization in a Few Paragraphs, the inimitable Victor Davis Hanson describes in but a few sentences that social pathology.
In a healthy society, Hillary Clinton would be an unknown.
Ugh, now Chelsea is getting in on the “we’re not rich” action.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/chelsea-clinton-care-money-article-1.1840138#ixzz35TEECany
Hard to take coming from a young woman who has generated a lot of personal wealth thanks to her family name (e.g. member of several board of directors, entering NBC as a top-level reporter with no journalistic experience).
Geoffrey Britain (@11:21),
“But she is symptomatic of a social pathology that has infected our nation.”
I think you have hit the nail on the head. Dig a little bit deeper though. I think Hillary truly believes this. Why? I think it speaks to the constant Progressive messaging based upon the envy of those who have what you don’t.
Progressives speak of income inequality and (disparagingly) of “the rich” because they always encourage looking up the economic ladder in envy of those above you. The implications are:
The dirty little secret of such a worldview, however, is that no matter where you stand on the economic ladder there are always those below you looking up in envy at you. Progressives, of course, never address this because it causes their narrative of envy to implode. A social pathology indeed!
Hillary is part of the establishment. So is Romney. Both are for big government solutions. Both are for the status quo. Both are out of touch.
The leftists are obsessed with sex, race and money. That’s why they are always calling other people sexist, racist, fat cats, one percenters etc. It’s called projection.
T,
Hillary believes she deserves her ‘just compensation’, as the ‘rightful leader’ of the elite and, in her mind, what makes her the rightful leader is her ‘certainty’ (i.e. egoistic justification) that no one truly cares as much as she while also being as willing to ‘prune the excess humanity’, as the greater good may require.
It’s nothing new, John Adams spoke of it, “Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak and that it is doing God’s service when [in actuality] it is violating all his laws.”
Steve,
There is no moral equivalence between Hilary Clinton and Mitt Romney. While arguably both are part of the establishment, ultimately the difference between them is that Romney hopes like Lincoln that, “my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.” whereas Hillary is a woman busily doing, “what she knows God would do . . . if only God had all the facts of the matter”
Geoffrey Britain,
I agree (what you and I have written is not mutually exclusive).
As for your great quotation of John Adams, C.S. Lewis echoed precisely those thoughts:
On that path walks Hillary, Obama and every single member of the Progressive corps.
Agreed, our takes are not mutually exclusive.
A great C.S. Lewis quote and among my collection.
Here’s another: “There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, “All right, then, have it your way.”
Romney is of the first, Hillary among the latter.
Geoffrey Britain,
and apropos of our discussion, I just ran across this Edmund Burke thought (H/T The Other McCain):
He sums it up quite nicely.
Ah, Edmund Burke. Along with Locke, how many young people will even recognize the name?
Here’s a favorite Burke quote;
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites. In proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves.
Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.
It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
Now this is funny. Joe Biden grabs the opportunity and rushes to tell us that he’s really a working stiff who doesn’t even “have a savings account”.
Biden continues to astound, it’s a kind of idiot-savant thing…
I’m looking forward (Forward!) to a Hillary (Hillary!) campaign.
All the people on the right, and half the people on the left hate her guts.
Sure, the DemProgs will vote for her. They’d vote for Satan himself. But it will be pretty hard to convince the LIVs to get off the couch for the sake of Hillary…that takes effort, and stuff.
Geoffrey Britain,
No, with Joe Biden it’s a kind of idiot-idiot thing.
GB, I disagree. There is moral equivalence between establishment politicians. There are sins of commission and sins of omission. Romney may be more the latter, but he is definitely part of the problem as are many or most in DC.
” . . .we’ve done it through dint of hard work.”
That’s quite the punch line to a joke!
Ann: “Now this is funny. Joe Biden grabs the opportunity and rushes to tell us that he’s really a working stiff who doesn’t even “have a savings account”.”
Should anyone trust a man with no savings and no investments to be anywhere near the levers of power in the USA? Nope! We’re in the very best of hands.
Let’s face it, the money for Hillary’s and Bill’s speeches, or to prop up their foundation, are fees for access to a couple who is powerful in DC. A couple of million doesn’t buy you much influence in Washington anymore, does it?
I’m reading Michael Medved’s book, “Right Turns” right now. He was in law school at Yale with Hillary. He says that she was the kindest, most sympathetic and supportive person back then, and that everyone liked her. From what I’ve read about afterwards, from the Watergate committee work to what we all know of how she treated the women that her husband was pursuing, she changed. Maybe one of her “hard choices” was to become ruthless in pursuit of her “just cause.” After all, it isn’t every day that we little people get a chance to serve such gifted people as Hill and Bill.
It’s obvious, really…what says “the common touch” better than a tattoo?
Toy Biederman:
There is no question that life can change and harden people.