I don’t see why we can’t judge Hillary based upon Bill’s presidency, since they’re obviously a package deal. And the real problem with them is that they’re Third Wayers who use triangulation strategy to get what they want. Which means that they’ll tell the left what they want to hear while cozying up as far to the right as they can get. So no, hearing Hillary give lip service to the poor and middle class doesn’t do much, as feeling our pain has been part of the Clinton strategy since the beginning.
I mean, it wasn’t that Bill didn’t get us more progressive legislation, but he wasn’t even trying. It was always about seeing how crazy the Republicans were, and then getting just to the left of them and then declaring victory because Republicans didn’t get everything they wanted. That’s why progressives HATED the Clintons, and why I always had to plug my nose in defending them. Because progressive policies weren’t even on the agenda after 1994. It was all about seeing how far to the right we’d go. And yet people liked Bill anyway. Why? Because he was better than the alternative, which was his strategy all along. So he won lots of political victories but lost almost every policy battle. Obama’s strategy of getting nothing passed is better than Clinton’s strategy of passing rightwing policies.
But that’s not just something they did during the 90’s. That’s in their DNA. They are ingrained with this “With Us Or Against Us” triangulation strategy which will have them feeling our pain while negotiating away the store. I mean, when you count his accomplishments as ending welfare, cutting taxes, ending Glass-Stegall, and bombing Iraq…I fail to see where the upside was. Yet Bill remains personally popular, despite having done little to deserve it.
You’d have a good point, except…why is Hillary pretending otherwise? Why is she even pretending she’s sorta like one of us when we all know otherwise?
Because that’s the problem here. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Hillary saying she’s wealthy while explaining what policies she’ll push so that we can all be more like her. But instead, she’s making it a silly game that distracts from the issue; just like the Clintons always do.
And this is the reason why I hope she never gets the nomination: Because we’ll be deluged once again with stupid controversies caused by the Clintons’ inability to give straight answers, which they then have to spin for days; all for issues that nobody would care about if they had just been honest.
Because it’d be great if she gave an answer like yours, but she didn’t. That’s the problem. She’s rich, yet imagines it’s a “gotcha” question that she needs to spin out of instead of taking head on.
Were you ROTFLYAO when you heard GWBush say that he served honorably during the Vietnam War? And that Saddam Hussein had WMDs? Mendacity is not just a (D) thing.
Bill Clinton’s supposed political acumen didn’t do the Democratics any favors during the 90s. On his watch, they lost their House majority for the first time in forty years (1994), the direct effects of which we still live with via the “Hastert Rule”.
Just keep in mind that there is a cottage industry that was created long ago, even before Bill Clinton took office that goes after anything the Clintons do or say. If you fail to recognize that, you’ll never be able to form a reasoned argument against a Hillary Clinton candidacy…It’ll be all reactive bullshit all the time for whatever cold dish is served to you by this industry. They’ve learned to use the media well over the years, and have never disbanded their efforts or hidden their contempt for “all things to do with the Clintons”.
I understand your desire to look under rocks for real contradictions in their approach to governing, but you’re making it reactionary based on a bunch of piled on stories, rather than thoughtful deliberation of specific issues. Let’s just wait till she makes her own case for why she wants to be President before jumping the gun. She may have some good ideas that don’t fall neatly into your current conception. I’m willing to give her that time to form her voice. A lot has changed since President Obama has taken office. She will not be another Obama, but she may very well support many of his initiatives and ideas into the future. I can only hope at this time.
BTW, Hillary and Bill are not one person. So at least give Hillary her due and not confuse or mesh the two of them as one. That’s just insulting on the face of it. Glass-Stegall I’m with you there. I’m sure there are other things as well, but those years compared to what followed…like day and night…or should I say daydreams and nightmares. Also, Work to Welfare also a problem for me back then. Anyway, keep your eye on the prize as they say…Nothing less than the SCOTUS and the repeal of Obamacare are at stake should we lose sight of keeping a Democratic President in the WH. I’m a realist. If you can name me a better candidate as of this moment that can win…let’s hear it. I’m all ears.
Why is it so difficult to understand that leaving the White House while being millions in debt is scary? The Clintons didn’t even own a house to go back to. Of course they are no idiots and knew that any former President had enourmous earning potential. Still, that potential had to be turned into a reality, while the debt was pretty real on day one.
Oh, and Hillary Clinton started running for the Senate soon afterwards, so that earning money for her could not have been a priority, quite the contrary. Nobody knew in advance that their autobiographies would be runaway bestsellers either.
I know how hard it is for all the Clinton haters out there (regardless of whether it is directed at Bill or Hillary or both) to acknowledge this reality, but it is still the reality of January 2001.
I don’t know. I get the impression most folks on the left have forgotten how truly bad the 90’s were politically. Not that Republicans have gotten weaker, since they haven’t (if anything, they’re more rabid, yet dumber). It’s that the Clintons never learned how to deal with scandals or the media.
And the problem is that they have to take on every single issue thrown their way, and don’t know how to duck fake controversy. Not only do they try to win every news cycle, but they need to defeat every question that comes their way. So when Hillary is asked about her wealth, instead of welcoming the obvious question and using it to pivot to her positions on income equality; she tries to defeat the question by absurdly pretending to be one of us.
Not that Obama’s perfect, but that’s a mistake he never makes. Hillary’s rich and there’s nothing wrong with that. Somebody needs to explain that to her.
Whatever. People with rich friends don’t need to worry about debt. Particularly not when they can earn more giving one speech than the average American earns in a year.
Being ten thousand in debt is a real problem. Being millions of dollars in debt is a problem only rich people have, and one that goes away if you’ve got rich connections. Particularly as it’s easier to negotiate a debt reduction when you owe millions compared with owing thousands. The Clintons haven’t had to worry about money in decades, and I’d take their problems over mine anytime.
And if Hillary was genuinely worried about the debt they owed, then she’s an idiot who doesn’t belong in the Whitehouse. But I don’t think that’s the case at all. She’s just saying whatever she thinks helps her politically, even when it doesn’t. And beyond that, I find your comment to be part of the problem, where people must hate the Clintons if they don’t buy their BS. But I don’t hate the Clintons. I just don’t want to spend another eight years shoveling the BS they keep tossing at us.
SR, why is it that Obama hasn’t had the same problems the Clintons did? I’ll tell you why: Because the Clintons suck at dealing with the media, period.
This story alone shows it. Here we are talking for days about this stupid answer she gave to an obvious question, all because she tried to spin it instead of giving a good answer. As everyone here says, it’s not a bad thing that the Clintons are rich. So why did Hillary pretend that it was bad? Why couldn’t she have given a good answer that would have explained what her policies will be, rather than deceitful spin? Sure, she might have been attacked no matter what she said, but why say something stupid? This is entirely her fault.
I’m telling you, the Clintons bring this upon themselves. Hillary did it in 2008 as well, which is a big reason Obama won. Sure, the GOP outrage machine has been in full blast since Obama got office, yet none of it has stuck. The Clintons just don’t know how to deal with controversy and the fact that we’re even talking about this just shows why. Whatever policy initiatives Hillary might try to pass, I see no reason why it couldn’t come from Biden instead. At least he knows how to laugh off attacks against him, rather than taking everything personally.
And I’ll just leave this with one of my lasting memories of the 2008 campaign: Hillary latching on to a gas tax holiday along with McCain because it became a political football for a week, and going so far as to drive a pick up truck and pumping gas; to show what a normal person she is. You know, for pumping gas one time; just like us normal people do. And that’s the kind of political stunts will be stuck with as long as Hillary is running. And the real question isn’t why Hillary shouldn’t run, but why Hillary? What does she have to offer, besides the last name?
I blame myself, but this is the first time I’ve actually read her entire quote. I had the impression until now that she said “Unlike the truly well off, we…” instead of “because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off,” which has completely different connotation.
This is another example of how the MSM gets stories wrong day after day and the deleterious effect it has on the national conversation.
Are we really at a point where the American people have to look for confirmation themselves every time one of the cable news channels reports something?
No, her answer was dumb no matter what she said. So she’s rich. So what? Liberalism doesn’t mean everyone has to be poor. Why did she keep it personal at all? Because it doesn’t matter if she can understand our pain. She could have been born on a pile of gold for all I care, I want to know what she’s planning to do to solve our problems.
All she had to do was to say that she worked hard for her money and wants an America where everyone has the same opportunities she’s had. And then tell us what those policies are. Is that so hard? Instead, we have her trying to contrast herself with the “truly well off,” which is a joke. Sure, she might not be making Romney money, but she’s a helleva lot closer to him than she is to us.
Because hey, as long as Romney’s following the law, what difference does it make what tax rate he pays? I don’t care what tax rate she pays. I want to hear if she’s going to change the law to make it more fair. But instead, we got a lot of feelgood tripe about how she feels our pain, like that’s something I can take the bank. So no matter what her exact words were, the overall answer was bad.
Doc…I wish Obama could run for a third term like FDR but it can’t and won’t happen. She may lack the empathy gene like President Obama, but I doubt that’s really the issue that concerns many people here.
I think she’s afraid of the way the media has always twisted what the Clinton’s say and do, no matter the level of triviality or import…and because of that, she plays it way too cautious. In fact, it is to her detriment. But, to take her entire character into question and presume she’s a complete disingenuous fraud of a politician because of her overly-cautious approach…I just don’t believe that’s the case. She can find it in her to relate to average people and has in the past, but because she and her husband are what they call nouveau riche as opposed to “old money” rich like FDR, RMoney, or McWar’s through his wife, my guess is she’s a bit embarrassed by the sudden wealth and everything that goes along with it. That’s often a typical reaction of the nouveau riche when talking about money and how its changed them.
The Clintons paid a 30% tax rate over a span of years since leaving the WH. I read that yesterday. I’ve been searching for which site I read that article on too to no avail…RMoney paid around 14% with added loopholes, offshore accounts and other bullshit means. They also gave a ton to charity. Yeah, they have about 100 million I read, but who really gives a shit. I care what they do with it, if they pay their fair share, which they do, and how they look upon the least of us.
I believe Ms. Clinton has yet to express how she sees things, but I believe she’s capable of articulating that just fine if given the chance. She botched the personal money question…but eh…I care more about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Hot Lunches, SNAP, SCOTUS, Bank Fraud, and the environment. The social safety net is important to me. Quelling gun violence is important to me. Fighting for affordable housing and education is important to me. I care where she stands on those issues, not how much money she has in her bank account.
She’s not an inevitable candidate…but she is in a lot better position than she was when going up against Obama for sure. I believe that experience will make her a better candidate and a better politician overall…at least I’m hoping it will.
HRC’s verbal awkwardness was burnished by camera-captured body language that suggested a real guilty-esque lack of comfort with the subject, as if anyone could ever have imagined an exiting Presidential family transitioning into Section 8 housing. Why, it’s as hard to imagine as Jenna Bush trying to get her head around Chelsea’s $600K payday for 2 crummy appearances on Today.
Ordinary Americans are souring because the only change they usually can see on the public stage is the increasing cash flowing into the same elite pockets.
Is national dysfunctional stasis the cause or the effect?
Plus, when she used the word “houses” (plural) did it ever occur to anyone that upon leaving the WH not only didn’t they have a house to go to, they had to go house hunting just like most people do. And as a US Senator, Sec. of State, and former First Lady with a Secret Service detail, they would need a home in NY and some kind of residence in DC simultaneously. I just don’t get the hysteria over them having more than one residence. Just about every politician in DC has that, except maybe Schumer…he shares his place with a couple of other pols I recall…and some DC Reps. who use their offices as their night chamber on taxpayer expense. Now if you were talking 9 houses for McWar, and 5 or 6 for RMoney…we’re talking real excess imo.
I think the Clintons had already purchased their NY residence before Bill left the White house.
Yes, it is “factually true” that the Clintons were “broke” on 12/31/2000. According to their income tax filing for 2000, they reported a joint AGI (Annual Gross Income) of less than $400K, with “$millions” in legal fees.
Yet their joint AGI reported for their 2001 income taxes was nearly $16M! That is not just potential “prospects” – the Clintons, especially Bill, had assured sources of income firmly in place the day he left public office. (Hillary stepped into her Senatorship.) I doubt that they spent many restless days and nights over their uncertain financial future.
I share your prioritys, and it is very important that Democrats retain the White House after 2016.
No, I can’t identify a better candidate out there (yet); even Hillary has yet to declare. I also agree that she would be better than any Republican nominee, in large measure because a Teapublican House could be dangerous with a GOP President. Add a possible GOP-controlled Senate after 2014 and (unlikely, but not impossibly) after 2016, and all doubt about the danger is erased.
I fear that a Democratic candidate (regardless whom) won’t win election in 2016. Only once since WW2 has the same party kept the White House beyond 2 consecutive terms (1988-92). That’s not a coincidence – voter fatigue for the same party in power is real and measurable.
Hillary may be “likable enough” (then-candidate Obama, 2008) in private, but her public persona often turns people off, even those willing to like her. Linking her with Bill, as his present “mansplanation” of Hillary’s remarks does, inevitably recalls their early boast of a “two-for-one co-Presidency”; and just as inevitably, projections of a repeat performance. Such projections may not help Hillary attract wavering voters.
I’m with you there. I’m sure there are other things as well, but those years compared to what followed…like day and night…or should I say daydreams and nightmares. Also, Work to Welfare