More than her condescending remark about leaving the White House dead broke...don't forget the moving vans of loot...her mendacious nature will stop her run for the White House along with this
Posted on 06/23/2014 7:18:50 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
One might have thought that Hillary Clinton would have learned a lesson about minimizing her personal wealth after her “dead broke” comment to Diane Sawyer in the first interview on her Hard Choices book tour. Her team tried to walk back those comments the next day, but to no avail. Political analysts blasted Hillary for being “tone deaf” during the interview, and that was before news broke that the Clintons like to exploit estate-tax loopholes they claim to oppose.
Hillary took her road show overseas, but still is making the same condescending mistakes in her quest to be seen as the hoi polloi with lots of toys. When challenged by The Guardian to explain her ability to speak on income inequality after making an avalanche of money in her post-White House years, Hillary tried to claim that she’s not rich-rich … and besides, she’s worked hard. Unlike the rest of those who have wealth, apparently:
And money? What about money? Bill and Hillary have reportedly made more than $100m since they left the White House in 2001. Yet that didn’t stop Hillary complaining to Diane Sawyer on ABC News that the couple had emerged from highest office “dead broke”, a comment that ranks for its tone deafness alongsideJohn McCain’s admission in the 2008 presidential election that he couldn’t remember how many houses he owned.
America’s glaring income inequality is certain to be a central bone of contention in the 2016 presidential election. But with her huge personal wealth, how could Clinton possibly hope to be credible on this issue when people see her as part of the problem, not its solution?
“But they don’t see me as part of the problem,” she protests, “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,” she says, letting off another burst of laughter. If past form is any guide, she must be finding my question painful.
“Not to name names”? Why not? If she’s referring to Mitt Romney, he paid plenty of income tax, and never once pretended to not be “truly well off.” Unlike the Clintons, Romney built his own business through hard work, not by leveraging the notoriety acquired by public service into multi-million book advances for memoirs written by ghost writers, and huge fees from the speaking circuit with speeches written by aides. At which job did Hillary employ “hard work” to earn that wealth, anyway?
Democrats are starting to worry about the hypocrisy and tone-deaf pronouncements, and the royal political difficulties they will produce:
Some influential Democrats — including former advisers to President Obama — said in interviews last week they fear that Clinton’s personal wealth and rarefied, cloistered lifestyle could jeopardize the Democratic Party’s historic edge with the middle class that powered Obama’s wins.
“I don’t know whether it’s just that she’s been ‘Madam Secretary’ for so long, but she’s generating an imperial image,” said Dick Harpootlian, who recently stepped down as Democratic Party chairman in South Carolina, which hosts an early presidential primary.
Harpootlian, who backed Obama over Clinton in 2008 and is a longtime ally of Vice President Biden, added: “She’s been living 30, going on 40 years with somebody bringing your coffee to you every morning. Is it more ‘Downton Abbey’ than it is America?”
Multiple Obama campaign advisers — who spoke only on the condition of anonymity to avoid alienating the Clintons — said they fear Clinton’s financial status could hurt her as it did Republican nominee Mitt Romney, whom Obama portrayed in 2012 as an out-of-touch plutocrat at a time of economic uncertainty.
“It’s going to be a massive issue for her,” one Obama adviser said. “When you’re somebody like the secretary of state or president of the United States or first lady, you’re totally cut off [from normal activity], so your perception of the middle-class reality gets frozen in a time warp.”
Asked what Democrats should do, the adviser said: “Panic.”
The panic will begin now, and not wait for 2016. Senate Democrats wanted to use income-inequality messaging against Republicans in the midterms as a way to distract from the non-recovery economy, ObamaCare, multiple scandals, and the collapse of Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Obama himself has been teeing up this strategy for more than a year. With Hillary Clinton actually embodying the persona that Democrats tried to hang on Romney in 2012, that messaging will backfire as Hillary Clinton sucks up more and more of the oxygen from the political scene.
The phrase “limousine liberal” will be poised for a big comeback this midterm season, and Democrats will have Hillary to thank for it.
Most people would be happy with a million
It’s not how much you have, it’s how grateful you are for what you have. She must be one miserable person.
Just a tad “weller” off than me. Well, maybe more like a capital TAD.
Seems like if you have 300 million and you are 'out of touch' ... I don't see how you can argue that having only 100 million makes you able to 'feel our pain.'
Ya know that’s not really true. There are hundreds of thousands of retired public employees living on pension that would require assets of over $5 million to support.
And if you tried to make them live on the returns of a measly million they’d start a riot.
Hillary fears she will be labeled a 1%-er and that would hurt her should she decide to run in 2016.
RE: Wasn’t Romney’s net worth about 100 million? Or was it 300?
Romney is worth about $250 Million.
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/republicans/mitt-romney-net-worth/
People in the USA might be bent out of shape by this foolish statement, but they are not likely to know of it. I can’t see an opponent making it an issue.
More than her condescending remark about leaving the White House dead broke...don't forget the moving vans of loot...her mendacious nature will stop her run for the White House along with this
The more I see her make the same gaffe over and over, the more I realize she honestly believes that she is not one of the evil “rich”. Her ideological blinders prevent her from seeing herself that way. She is “for the working man” and the “rich” are all evil Republicans who laugh when they see a homeless person freezing on the street.
The fact that an interviewer for whatever contrived deceitful purpose can sit in a setting with her and listen to “dead broke” or “not well off” without laughing or standing up and walking off the set in abject disgust is an indictment of the complete depravity to which this country has sunk.
This woman is a tool of evil. There are no other words on this earth to describe it.
I’m working on my second million. The first million thing didn’t work out. I never got there. Not even close. Anyway, I heard a commie lib shill on FNC this morning saying that Hillary is one of “us”. “Po folk”.
Ask a greedy person how much money they need/want,
and the answer will always be “More”.
And she had to work for that! Not like SOME PEOPLE she could mention (and pay taxes on it too- also not like SOME PEOPLE she could mention *cough*romney*cough*)
I thought they would get off that Romeny tax thing after he proved he paid all he had to and then some AND gave away a substantial amount to charity too... (something like almost 50%)
The average annual individual income in Booneville Kentucky, for comparison, is ~ $16,488/year. The annual individual income in the U.S. is something like $26,564.00.
As far as Romney’s wealth;
You could ALMOST liken him to Al Gore or George W. Bush...
Only, of the three, it is AlGore who never WORKED A JOB a day in his life for ANY of his money.
They all were born into some wealth, but at least Bush and Romney had jobs and RAN businesses!!!
Let’s see, if you had $100M and spent $274K EVERY DAY FOR A YEAR...then you’d be poor and flat broke.
What’s particularly ironic is her remark that they worked hard for it, as if that means they have a right to it or something. I mean, that’s a notion that she and her ilk have opposed all their lives. The Left has always made it clear that just because you earned it doesn’t mean you should be able to have it and keep it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.