Skip to main content

Screencap of Hillary Clinton interview on ABC
Pounce all you want. Hyperventilating about Hillary Clinton's net worth has
as much traction as "you didn't build that" nonsense.
Politico, being Politico:
Hillary Clinton is having a very hard time being rich.

After two weeks of verbal gaffes and unflattering headlines, Democratic operatives, political historians and counselors to the nation’s wealthy agree that Clinton’s current strategy — acting like she’s not incredibly rich and made her money the old-fashioned way — is not working and needs to change. Fast.

Reality, a day later, from an NBC/WSJ poll today:
Fifty-five percent of Americans say that Hillary Clinton can relate to and understand the problems of average citizens as well as other presidential candidates can, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Annenberg poll.

By comparison, 37 percent of respondents disagreed, saying she can’t relate as well as other candidates can. These numbers come after Hillary Clinton declared that she and her husband were “dead broke” after leaving the White House in 2001.

So oops. I guess those Beltway reporters can't relate to actual people, can they, given that they're always so wrong about what people believe.  

But the Beltway media has their narrative, and you'll have to pry it from their cold, dead fingers. For example, here is a wanker at the Washington Post's painful "The Fix":

But that doesn't mean Clinton has nothing to worry about. The "as well as" clause in the poll's question probably waters down negative reactions to the Clinton family's wealth and how she has talked about it in recent days. That's because (1) we really just don't know who those other candidates will be, and (2) when we do meet those candidates, people might not view them as very "in touch" (see: Mitt Romney, John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis). If people were simply asked whether Clinton was relatable, full stop, the numbers might be a little lower.
Yup. "Unskewing" polls is no longer a Republican-only tactic. It's also helpful for Beltway reporters unreasonably clinging to a dying meme.

Originally posted to kos on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:48 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Who gives a flying f*ck about whether HRC (28+ / 0-)

    managed to make a few dollars post-White House?

    Seriously, WTF?

    They've got nothing else, so let's make her as unappealing as possible to the Democratic base by saying she's got a few greenbacks?

    (Never mind the unapologetic Oligarch we're going to run against her on the Republican side.)

    /sheesh

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:53:55 PM PDT

    •  The $400,000.00 she received from Goldman (17+ / 0-)

      Sachs left a bad taste in my mouth. IMHO, three things we should keep an eye on:

       - Who is making the payment?
       - How much?
       - Why?

      “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

      by 420 forever on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:09:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Would the words (19+ / 0-)

        she actually spoke for that fee be of some relevance?

        If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

        by ord avg guy on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:34:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Probably not. nt (5+ / 0-)

          “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

          by 420 forever on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:40:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  hmmm... (5+ / 0-)

            You may want to rethink your equation then.

            If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

            by ord avg guy on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:17:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Probably not. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              elwior, tb mare, 3goldens, schumann

              If she was paid $400 large by the  Left-handed, Cheeto-munching, Myopic, Ingrown Toenail Sufferers of the Greater Metro area of East Pekin, Illinois, that would be fine.

              But it wasn't that eclectic group of limping podiatric patients who paid her. It was the Blackwater of finance, GOLD, man, Sucks.

              If the group was called Child-fucking Cathlic Priests of New Jersey, wouldn't you have a problem with her taking a penny of their lucre? Me, too. So why give GOLD, man, Sucks a break, and just as critically, HRC for accepting their bribe?

              What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

              by agnostic on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:40:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What was the bribe? (9+ / 0-)

                A "bribe" (your term) implies a quid pro quo, yes? What is the quid pro quo? My problem with this line of thought is that there no logical sense to it.

                Equating Goldman Sachs to child raping priests only works in relatively small political circles.

                Unlike your straw man suggesting otherwise, I didn't give anyone a break, did I. I simple suggested that the content of the speech might (should) have some relevance.

                If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

                by ord avg guy on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:05:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Are you dense, or do you simply write the scripts (6+ / 0-)

                  For 60 Minutes?

                  Ok, I apologize. . . Maybe.

                  I come from Chicago. Politics here, due to Fed over- & undercover-sight meant that you never speak clearly about what you want and when you want it. The favor you seek may be years in the future. Or it might be the next senate appointee tomorrow.

                  Of course she sold out to GOLD man, Sucks. The question is when will she be asked to pay up.

                  There are half a dozen kids of high ranking pols who now are employed by Big Frackers. You think that is a coincidence? Or perhaps a subtle scheme to influence a future reg, vote, or agency rule?

                  What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

                  by agnostic on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:11:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It was a simple question. (3+ / 0-)

                    What was the bribe?
                    What was the quid pro quo?
                    You don't have an answer because it doesn't exist. The doesn't make me dense or a script writer for 60 minutes that you make an allegation you can't support. In fact, it says a lot more about you than it does me.

                    What was the bribe?
                    What was the quid pro quo?

                    $200k is HRC's standard speaking fee. That what everyone pays her to speak to them.

                    To think that $400k secures some undefined favor at some undefined time is beyond ridiculous to anyone that pays attention.

                    But please, more insults and strawmen. that will prove you're right.

                    If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

                    by ord avg guy on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:23:11 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Ah, the narrow Roberts Court definition of "bribe" (5+ / 0-)

                      Useful even to folks in the Democratic Party who want to defend candidates who have sold out to corporate interests.

                      Actually, as I recall what Hillary Clinton said, it was solicitous of the hurt feelings of the poor Goldman Sachs bankers.

                      And I bet Chelsea Clinton got $600K from NBC for her experience and talent as a journalist.

                      If you don't see how large corporations offering this kind of money to politicians and their family members is likely to influence their world view and actions, then I have to guess you willfully don't want to see it.

                      •  Do not bother. Colonic eye filters are (0+ / 0-)

                        Impenetrable.

                        What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

                        by agnostic on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 05:45:11 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Your self-awareness is striking, (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          emelyn

                          and unexpected.

                          Listen, I'm really sorry that my questions, context and facts fucked up your little meme. But your continued insults aren't going to change that. They only make you look sad and petty.

                          Have a nice day.

                          If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

                          by ord avg guy on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 05:59:42 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  If you have the capacity to read big words, (0+ / 0-)

                            I recommend the following article for you.

                            But be careful, if you ever had an open mind, you might find it changing on you. Then again . . . .

                            How did the Clintons become so rich?

                            What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

                            by agnostic on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 06:19:02 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  More petty insults from agnostic. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            emelyn

                            And let's be clear...you don't have the first fucking clue regarding where my thoughts are regarding HRC. I posted something that challenges your CT and rather than thoughtfully consider my comments and attempting to refute them you lazily went for the straw men and insults.

                            Like you, your article cherry picks facts to make the case for quid pro quo. The only difference is your claim is that GS is paying actions that haven't happened yet, and possibly never could happen, and your article claims groups are paying for actions after the fact. You really should invest a little bit in some education and learn the difference between correlation and causation.

                            Tell you what we'll do. You continue to live in a world where your view is based on innuendo and CT. I'll continue to base mine on facts, context, and knowledge. M'kay?

                            If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

                            by ord avg guy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 07:22:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh... (0+ / 0-)

                            and some more fcats for you to consider:

                            http://www.buzzfeed.com/...
                            (look at all those bribes - LOL)

                            If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

                            by ord avg guy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 07:23:30 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  More bribes... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sviscusi

                            $225k from UNLV
                            $300k from UCLA

                            But sometimes she speaks for free:

                            Clinton made free speeches for CURE, Vital Voices, Women in the World, Women for Women, International Crisis Group, the Wildlife Conservation Society, CARE, Elton John's AIDS foundation, the Chicago House, and the New America Foundation
                            The more facts the better, right agnostic?

                            If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

                            by ord avg guy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 07:38:03 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  leave me alone. (0+ / 0-)

                            you act as though you are secretly on her payroll.

                            What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

                            by agnostic on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:40:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nope. Another straw man. (0+ / 0-)

                            I act as though I know what the difference between a speaking fee and a bribe is. Nothing more, nothing less. If you actually read my comments instead of employing your simplistic "doesn't agree wiith me, must be pro-HRC" calculation you would understand that. Or maybe you do understand that and are just being deliberately dishonest.

                            If you want me to "leave you alone", no problem. Simply stop spewing your insults and straw men at me and I'll stop replying to them.

                            If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

                            by ord avg guy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:08:34 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Silly Bob. (0+ / 0-)

                        You don't have to put bribe in quotes. It's a real word with a real definition that you don't have to look to the right-wing court to define (but if that's what suits you have at it.

                        Here's a nice, simple definition from Merriam-Webster (Hopefully they aren't too right-wing for you):

                        bribe noun ˈbrīb\
                        : something valuable (such as money) that is given in order to get someone to do something
                        So, again, what the fuck was the bribe for? It's a simple question.

                        Now, your claim was that it was for some vague influence of world view or action. I would suggest that your claim is based on your apparent ignorance of speaking tours and standard fees.

                        Let me try to help you out here....Bill Clinton, HRC's husband, by the end of 2012, had collected around $110M from an average speaking fee of $195k per speech. According to you that would be a whole ton of people buying favors and altering word view, yes? You can see how your theory collapses when put into that context, yes?

                        See, sometimes famous people go on speaking tours and collect fees. Generally, they speak to whoever is willing to pay their fee. HRC's fee is $200k. GS paid it for 2 speeches. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is just CT.

                        You can see how I'm not a right-wing Democrat defending a corporate sell out just because I understand something better than you and yours. You may not have heard, but this is a reality based community. I'm sorry if reality fucks up your little meme once in a while, but that's life. Not every day is a Sunday.

                        Glad I could help.

                        If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

                        by ord avg guy on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 06:28:39 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Willful ignorance (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          chuck utzman

                          This is all payment for services rendered. You might want to look into the history of the Clinton administration and Big Banks. As in, the Clinton administration giving the Big Banks what they wanted.

                          I am firmly in the reality-based community. You're the one—with your ridiculous argument that throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars at people like Hillary and Bill Clinton isn't going to bias them in favor of their benefactors—who is living in la-la land.

                          Bill and Hillary are part of the self-serving contingent who have been selling the Democratic Party to the highest bidders. What do the corporations get for their money? Access and influence.

                          That's not CT. That's Politics 101.

                          •  There's definitely some willful ignorance here, (0+ / 0-)

                            and it's unquestionably all yours.

                            This is all payment for services rendered.
                            Yep. The services rendered was two speeches. That how speaking fees work, Bob. HRC, like her husband, averages $200k per speech no matter who they are speaking to. You willfully want to ignore that pesky fact to make the claim that when GS pays the standard speaking fee to HRC they are actually doing it as a quid pro quo. Nevermind the fact that HRC isn't in office (and won't possibly be for another three years). Nevermind the fact $400k is chump change to GS and a potential presidential candidate. Nevermind the fact that HRC collects similar fees to speak to entities that you would find less objectionable and may even support.

                            Again, this is how it works: The speaker gets paid to speak, and the speaker speaks. It is nothing more than simple-minded CT to suggest otherwise in this case.

                            You really think GS has to pay $400k to get access to HRC? You really think her Wall St support is based on cash payments? That's some "la-la land" shit right there Bob. Let me give you a clue here. Focusing on the made-up problems with HRC distracts from the real problems with HRC and loses you a lot of credibility.

                            The problem with HRC is her predisposition to often support policies that GS finds favorable. But that appears to be a too complicated and political an understanding for some. So instead they latch onto simplistic CT to make sense of things.

                            If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

                            by ord avg guy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 05:45:19 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Stop it already. (0+ / 0-)

                            Your willful ignorance is painful.

                            What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

                            by agnostic on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 06:19:51 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Stop what? (0+ / 0-)

                            Presenting facts? I'm sorry, Agnostic. But your petty little insults won't change the facts.

                            If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

                            by ord avg guy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 07:01:41 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  And Al Gore would (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sukeyna, polecat, JamieG from Md

                have appointed, for sures and for realz, Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court.  No doubt about it.  

                Seriously, instead of bitching and moaning about HRC's speaking fees.  Go pound the pavement - canvas - and make some phone calls, organize, get out  the votes for the candidate you think will make the difference you seek - and then quadruple your effort to see that candidate elected, lather rinse repeat for all who will represent your ideals in the Senate, House, local legislature.  And then if you still want to bitch, yay, you've earned it and I'll buy you a whiskey.

        •  No speech is worth $200,000 (16+ / 0-)

          It is "legal" payola.

          Especially when:

          But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish.
          http://www.politico.com/...

          Hillary does not have the benefit of a glib tongue.

          by The Dead Man on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:44:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Here we go (20+ / 0-)
        "She’s given dozens of speeches for free. From Helen Keller International to Save the Children to Conservation International, she’s continued to champion the same causes she has for years," they wrote.

        In addition to these organizations, the aide said Clinton made free speeches for CURE, Vital Voices, Women in the World, Women for Women, International Crisis Group, the Wildlife Conservation Society, CARE, Elton John's AIDS foundation, the Chicago House, and the New America Foundation, among others.

        Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/...

        If trees gave off WIFi signals, we would probably plant so many trees, we would save the planet. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe.

        by skohayes on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:52:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You make the case that only those born into wealth (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BachFan

        can afford to become President without facing any suggestion of moral turpitude or greed or bribery or the taint of corruption.

        You cleverly make made the most effective case for oligarchy based on "ethics" that I have seen here.

        Hillary Clinton, apparently, still has to earn her money, not just inherit it.

        "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

        by Uncle Moji on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 05:33:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Some many millions of dollars (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JamieG from Md

        surround Hillary Clinton these days, of which she likely controls or strongly influences a significant percentage.

        That there is a good possibility that some of that cash will find its way into battleground Senate races is, IMO, one appropriate outcome in a Koch-fueled right-wing GOP.

        I think whether someone likes Hillary Clinton or not is far less the point than her standing.  She has money and celebrity.  There is a chance that some of both those things will be given over to help elect more Democrats to the next Congress.  

        I'd be pleased if it did.  

        "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

        by Remediator on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 05:40:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I've got plenty of issues with Hillary (10+ / 0-)

      I hope to God she is not our candidate. But why on earth is THIS an issue? I know, I know, it's somehow a sin for any Democrat to be rich because the Democratic Party still has platform planks that support benefits for the poor and middle class, and unless you are greedy, selfish and heartless, being rich makes you a hypocrite. Or something. I never got this. What it does is say that anyone with money cannot speak up on behalf of those who don't which pretty much means they have no voice, since money is speech blahblahblah fuck you Supreme Court, no, I mean it, FUCK YOU.

      THIS is not the reason I want virtually any other candidate than Hillary.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

      by anastasia p on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:51:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have to agree with you anastasia. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bahaba, DiesIrae, StevenWells, polecat

        This isn't a real issue, but a beltway media issue. And it's apparently an issue for them because she "misspoke," which really she didn't do.
           What she did, by her own admission, was to speak "inartfully," which should really not be a BFD.

          I think they're just looking for something, perhaps because a "horserace" sells better than a cakewalk.

        "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

        by elwior on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:58:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Millions of dollars in the hole (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          1040SU, polecat

          from legal fees to me still sounds like the definition of dead broke, or worse.  I had and have no problem with her characterization...

          •  But she had just gotten a multi (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior, 3goldens, PurpleElectric

            million dollar book contract and had bought a house in Westchester.

            •  In case you weren't aware, (0+ / 0-)

              a former President has to live in a house on a large enough piece of property to house a separate facility just for the Secret Service detachment to occupy.  This means very large house on a large lot with multiple buildings, which isn't cheap...

              •  Which proves my point. Thank you. She did not (4+ / 0-)

                know what being dead broke means to most. And, her ex president spouse had a salary in his retirement package. For most Americans, that is not in any way dead broke. Should add that not only did she get a multi million dollar book contract but I believe her husband  also did. For most Americans,  as I've already said, that is not dead broke. And they got the house in Chappaqua, so that she could run for a senate seat representing a state in which she had never lived. For most Americans, this is not what being dead broke means.

                •  Put aside the reality. HC teed the issue up ... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  3goldens, PurpleElectric

                  ... with her own unsolicited comment.

                  The whole business need not have been any issue at all, except that she raised it. Making her look as oblivious as Mitt about financial disparities.

                  2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                  by TRPChicago on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 04:18:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  And a spouse that there was no guarantee she'd (0+ / 0-)

                  still be with.

                  Do any of you remember how dicey things were in 2000?  That Al Gore went into the welcoming arms of Lieberman (!!!) for access to capital rather than have the (supposedly-) toxic Bill Clinton help campaign for him...

                  Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                  I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                  —Spike Milligan

                  by polecat on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 07:53:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I think most Americans (0+ / 0-)

                  know 'dead broke' is a relative term, just like 'rich.'  Mike Bloomberg stated at a news conference that a guy earning six figures is "making no money."  He still won his first re-election by historic margin.  NYers only turned on Bloomberg after he backed developers turning hospitals into luxury co-ops.  We never cared about Bloomberg's personal wealth per se.  We did care about economic predation.

                  Likewise, I don't care that  I live in a studio while my next door neighbors live in million dollar condos (which Bloomberg would consider servants' quarters).  I do care when my landlord tries to drive me out and turn my building into condos.  Based on her policy record, I think Hillary will continue to support laws making it harder for my landlord to do that.

        •  Seconded on those points. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          polecat, JamieG from Md

          It's not so much as "issue" as an "issue hunt."

          Both Roosevelts were pretty well off, as I recall (and that family from Hyannis Port, too).  

      •  Agreed - Beltway didn't question Romney's $$$ (8+ / 0-)

        If anything, they excused it all as a sign of his incredible business success (even if his #1 business qualification was always his dad's name).

        It's only a sin to make money if you are a Democrat.

        ad astra per alia porci

        by harrije on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:02:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Clinton's aren't in the same stratosphere (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mjd in florida, JamieG from Md

          as the Romney's & Bush's when it comes to $$$$!  The beltway has been driving me crazy with this meme!  She was born middle class & Bill was born poor.  They weren't making tons of $$$ in Arkansas either!  They didn't get into college as "Legacies" & worked very hard to advance their careers - as most people do.  She published her 1st book in 1996 - when she was 48 years old.  When they left the Whitehouse in 2000 they were 52 & 53 years old.  They have done exceptionally well since that time & have no financial worries at all now & yes - they are now "rich."  But it took them many years to get there.  Romney & Bush, as Ann Richards would say, were born on 3rd base & thought they hit a triple!  There is just no comparison.

          Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare!

          by 1040SU on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 04:07:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  But I thought Hillary was a Communist. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        polecat

        I think it's just click bait.  Politico makes money by feeding the rightwingers' fantasy that Hillary is on the ropes.  They eat this stuff up.

        I haven't heard any actual Republican officials jump on Hillary's finances.  But if they are, it's a good sign that they so don't get the issue of "income inequality."  Do they think "1%" literally means 1%?

        As chair of Legal Services Corp., Hillary fought off President Reagan's campaign to wipe out Legal Services for the poor.  If the GOP wants to equate Hillary with 1% developers who sic Dobermans on tenants (until they run into a Legal Services tenant lawyer) -- that's a gopher ball.  But then again, Romney ran that incompetently.

    •  As I've stated before... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bahaba, polecat

      ...Jimmy Carter gets speaking fees. I'm guessing he doesn't get the Financial Elite fees, but there are lots of well-heeled foundations and organizations that essentially underwrite the expenses of his other activities.

      Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:14:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  hundreds of blowhards on 1200 radio stations (0+ / 0-)

      have been used to give it buzz over for the last few weeks.

      the think tanks feed it to them, they chew it over

      the radio gods lay out a great spread of prechewed rw cuds every day for lazy media tools like david gregory to pick through for further regurgitation. the gregorys know the RW bullshit has been pounded into the earholes of 50 mil a week so it doesn't really matter if its shit.

      then even people on liberal blogs think that the clintons might as well be romneys.

      same media management technique has worked very well for them for 25 years because the left gives rw radio little credit for its dominant role. over and over and over.

      This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

      by certainot on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:23:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lovie for POTUS in 2016 (6+ / 0-)
    As you might guess, she fares less well among all other voters -- although she still has the backing of a solid majority of all voters who don't see her as the next Thurston Howell III. The poll found that 55 percent of all people think she's as relatable as other possible candidates, with 37 percent disagreeing.

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

    by annieli on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:55:10 PM PDT

  •  You can take the meme (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueyedace2

    from my cold dead hands .

    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

    by indycam on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:55:35 PM PDT

  •  Suddenly I want a Clinton/Warren 2016 ticket (16+ / 0-)

    So that Warren can be FourthBranch™ and scare the living daylights out of every Republican on the planet.  And be impeachment insurance™.

    I'm starting to like that -- Hillary Clinton/ Elizabeth Warren.  Women.  Break that glass ceiling into so many pieces that it CAN'T be put back together.

    And fix the FRIGGIN' Supreme Court.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:56:06 PM PDT

  •  Brokegate Molehill nt (4+ / 0-)

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:56:11 PM PDT

  •  Matthews had an interesting observation: (36+ / 0-)

    her rather obvious discomfort at discussing the fact she's no longer middle class pretty much underlines her middle class roots. Kennedy, Roosevelt, etc. could joke about being rich because they always had bee.

     HRC? Probably feels a little weird.

    I live under the bridge to the 21st Century.

    by Crashing Vor on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:57:09 PM PDT

    •  No. Being rich is not a plus for her ambitions. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, tb mare, gulfgal98

      She needs some semblance of middle class to sell her 2016 brand of hope and change faux populism.

      Hillary does not have the benefit of a glib tongue.

      by The Dead Man on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:47:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But it's where she was born. (5+ / 0-)

        She comes from middle class roots, and all the money in the world doesn't change that.  She was brought up in a certain way with certain values.  She is not a patrician born to wealth and privilege like most Republicans that run for President, and that makes all the difference really...

        •  Which is why I thought Matthews' observation (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          willrob, montanajarhead

          was incisive. Someone born to great wealth will, at worst, shrug their shoulders when it's brought up (Kennedy: "Got a message from Dad-'I'm not paying for a landslide.'").

          Someone who grew up honestly dirt poor doesn't have a problem with wealth, either. "Hell, yeah, I'm rich!"

          Someone brought up middle class can be uncomfortable admitting they are no longer of that class.

          I live under the bridge to the 21st Century.

          by Crashing Vor on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 04:27:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Yes, the Beltway Media really, really sucks. (11+ / 0-)

     We all know that.
        But in this instance, they seem to want what I and so many other Democrats, particularly progressive Democrats want, a real, honest-to-goodness primary contest.

      So many of us are not all that taken with Hillary Clinton, and do not wish to see a coronation, or anything like it.

    "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

    by elwior on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:57:56 PM PDT

    •  IT IS NOT A FUCKING CORONATION (12+ / 0-)

      Sorry elwior, I am SO tired of the same old talking points we've been hearing since 2007.
      She has worked her ass off to get where she is today, and for you and others to dismiss her record that way is maddening.

      If trees gave off WIFi signals, we would probably plant so many trees, we would save the planet. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe.

      by skohayes on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:56:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sorry too skohayes, but what some people (9+ / 0-)

        contemplate sure seems that way to me.

        "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

        by elwior on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:00:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Really? (13+ / 0-)

        I know a lot of people who have worked their asses off their whole life and are still getting nowhere.  Especially the people who work two or three jobs with no health benefits at all or life insurance policies or pensions.

        She has worked her ass off to get where she is today, and for you and others to dismiss her record that way is maddening.

        Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

        by gooderservice on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:55:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So the President is supposed (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AlexDrew, Dr Swig Mcjigger

          to be a nobody that's never done anything in their life just to suit your egalitarian principles?

          •  Who said anything about: (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior, BlueDragon, JayRaye, 3goldens, allenjo
            never done anything in their life
            You did.

            Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

            by gooderservice on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:23:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yet you dismiss (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              skohayes, Dr Swig Mcjigger

              her talents and accomplishments out of hand.  Because of what?  Her name?  The fact that people are willing to shell out the big bucks to listen to her speak?

              •  I wouldn't pay to listen to her. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JayRaye, 3goldens, elwior

                I take that back.  I did spend big bucks for an intimate fundraiser when she was running for the Senate years ago.

                I was impressed by what she had to say.  I'd say she's one of the best politicians the Democratic Party has had for a long time.  But it's all politics and bullshit.  She's a politician and she's great at doing that.  As far as being a leader the country needs RIGHT NOW, nah, that's not her forte.

                Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

                by gooderservice on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:30:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  i supported the clintons all the way (10+ / 0-)

                through their presidency and beyond.

                one big thing changed: i was ignorant of how bill had enabled the gutting of Glass–Steagall

                2. i saw both of them support the abandonment of the american middle class after the 2008 crisis

                3. i didn't like the race baiting against obama in 2008 campaign and just can't forgive her for that

                we can't afford her or anyone like her and survive as a nation.

                i'm not sure we have a nation anymore.

                we certainly don't have time to mess around with incremental change.

                i suspect a lot of people like me are going to be in real poverty in their 70s after a lifetime of professional work

                it is easy for the comfortable ones to say: go slow when we are at warp 10 in the opposite direction.

                •  Bill didn't gut Glass Steagal (0+ / 0-)

                  Please read up on how the "gutting" started 4 years after the bill was passed during FDR's term and continued through every president up until Clinton.

                  If trees gave off WIFi signals, we would probably plant so many trees, we would save the planet. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe.

                  by skohayes on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 05:24:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, the correct phrase would have been (5+ / 0-)

                    "The final repeal of Glass-Steagall was signed into law by President Clinton."

                    Gut, repeal, tomato, tomahto.

                    The term Glass–Steagall Act usually refers to four provisions of the U.S. Banking Act of 1933 that limited commercial bank securities activities and affiliations within commercial banks and securities firms.[1] Congressional efforts to “repeal the Glass–Steagall Act” referred to those four provisions (and then usually to only the two provisions that restricted affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms).[2] Those efforts culminated in the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA), which repealed the two provisions restricting affiliations between banks and securities firms.[3]
                    “It is true that the Glass-Steagall law is no longer appropriate to the economy in which we lived. It worked pretty well for the industrial economy, which was highly organized, much more centralized and much more nationalized than the one in which we operate today. But the world is very different.” ---  Transcript of Clinton remarks at Financial Modernization bill signing, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Newswire, November 12, 1999
                    That "very different world" went to shit in 2008 precisely because those banks and securities firms had merged creating "too big to fail" entities with huge obligations of the Federal Government to cover their assets or see a systematic collapse of the banking system as well as the fraudulent securities floated by irresponsible combined 'securities' firms.

                    "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

                    by YucatanMan on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 06:59:01 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You need to go a lot farther back to (0+ / 0-)

                      the 1960s and 1970s.
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                      In 1967 the Senate passed the first of several Senate passed bills that would have revised Glass–Steagall Section 16 to permit banks to underwrite municipal revenue bonds.[34] In 1974 the OCC authorized national banks to provide “automatic investment services,” which permitted bank customers to authorize regular withdrawals from a deposit account to purchase identified securities.[35] In 1977 the Federal Reserve Board staff concluded Glass–Steagall permitted banks to privately place commercial paper. In 1978 Bankers Trust began making such placements.[36] As described below, in 1978, the OCC authorized a national bank to privately place securities issued to sell residential mortgages in a securitization[37]

                      If trees gave off WIFi signals, we would probably plant so many trees, we would save the planet. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe.

                      by skohayes on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 03:52:00 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, it is. (5+ / 0-)

        It's not about her not working hard. Many people have worked hard. But it IS a coronation, and it's dangerous.

        Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

        by anastasia p on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 04:29:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Seriously (6+ / 0-)

        Many folks work their asses off.  That alone does not guarantee them the Presidency.  I want my candidate to articulate and stand behind policy issues that will benefit the majority of Americans.  It really is pretty simple.  Did name your candidate actually take positions that I support and did name your candidate actually take actions to try to make them into law?

        "I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West "...isn't the problem here that the government takes on, arbitrarily and without justification, an adversarial attitude towards its citizenry?" ~ SouthernLiberalinMD

        by gulfgal98 on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 05:11:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  How is it a "coronation" (23+ / 0-)

      when she's won the support of 70 percent of the Democratic base?

      A "coronation" implies being given the crown based on birthright (or media or establishment proclamation). She didn't have that popular support in 2006-8, but now she has it.

      I know that frustrates lots of people, but it's the cold hard reality. She's got genuine popular support.

      •  I think her support is a mile wide (8+ / 0-)

        and an inch deep.

      •  She was in a very similar position in 2006-8. (9+ / 0-)

         She had the air of inevitability, which is what some of us are referring to as her having a coronation. Like, it makes no sense for anyone else to show up, we already have our candidate.
           Except that in 2008, Obama showed up and captured the imagination of so many of us, while Hillary clung to her inevitability, until it broke.

           People here, Progressives everywhere are saying they want better than Hillary Clinton. Listen, and you may hear them (us).
            I think (and I hope) that Elizabeth Warren will challenge Hillary this time around, and perhaps shatter the inevitability once again.

           Why we feel this way is, I'm sure the subject of many diaries to come.

        "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

        by elwior on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:08:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Dem base loved this guy named "Dean" summer (12+ / 0-)

          of '03, which was a year closer to actual votes being cast than we are now.  I recall how the party mandarins all acceded to our wishes and meekly accepted his nomination.

          None of us have a clue right now as to what the lay of the land will be on 2/1/16, the currently proposed IA Caucus date.  Maybe no other viable candidate will ever emerge and HRC will lap the field and close it down quickly.  Maybe her support will erode and a viable challenger will emerge--who the hell knows.

          I do know that history teaches us that Dem front-runners often fade.   Recent history teaches us that this front-runner faded quickly last time she ran.  There is no harm in waiting for actual votes to be cast before choosing a nominee.

          Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

          by RFK Lives on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:57:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And we know how that turned out. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PALiberal1, chuckvw

          I got absolutely FLAMED here, to the point where I took hiatus, for daring to point out that Barack Obama was cut from the same business friendly, DLC approved cloth as Hillary Rodham Clinton. I think one reason why I neither reflexively support Obama nor automatically loath everything he does is because I never bought into the "Obama as a Progressive" hype for a second. I'm not so disappointed that I fault his every word and deed, nor am I spending my time trying to drown out criticism by cheering more loudly. I voted for him. Twice. He has been a competent President and orders of magnitude better than what Romney or McCain would have been I think. There's no denying he has arguably had the most recalcitrant Congress in history to deal with in a time when "Republican" is synonymous with "Batshit Crazy".  But there's no denying that he has governed with the same philosophy that many here accuse Clinton of having. Clinton is a pro business, DLC (or whatever group represents that wing of the Democratic party now), approved, mainstream politician. THAT'S who is going to be President. Not Hillary Clinton per se but that kind of mainstream, pro business politician will be the nominee. That's because that's the way our flawed system works. Because that's who will be able to put the money together to run. I agree it absolutely sucks and it's my fervent hope that some Progressive populist will keep pressure on her, pushing her left but the reality is, that it's going to be Hillary or somebody with the next best support and organizing network and the ability to get big donors to open up their wallets. I share many of the same concerns about HRC but let's not pretend they are unique to her or that Obama has ever been any different. The only significant difference between the two's record only exists because Clinton has been in the "service" of the public much longer. And that is the simple reality.

          "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

          by MargaretPOA on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 04:07:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No she wasn't (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AlexDrew, emelyn

          You're either misinformed or lying. There's a huge difference between polling at 35% and 65%.

        •  The numbers were very different in Dec 2007 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AlexDrew, raptavio

          than they are now, for Clinton.  She had "majority" support but not the overwhelming support she has now.

          Not a "very similar position".

          And stop dragging Elizabeth Warren into this, did you not see that she signed a letter supporting a Clinton for President run?  Even Elizabeth does not agree with you.

          I did not support Clinton the last go 'round.  I have problems with her policies.  But I'm not going to wage a futile campaign for an Elizabeth Warren candidacy when Warren herself would be holding a Clinton for President sign.  Not doing it.

          "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

          by Uncle Moji on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 05:38:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Please stop. (6+ / 0-)

      I cannot and will not dismiss her talents and capabilities because of her last (married) name.  I just won't so stop pushing that please...

    •  elwior, read this: (0+ / 0-)

      New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

      by AlexDrew on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 06:51:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Republicans always run home to their memes. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, PrahaPartizan, whl

    The Republican brand: "Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich"

    by D in Northern Virginia on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:58:25 PM PDT

  •  It's a stupid meme, for sure. I have to say, (5+ / 0-)

    though, that I really do not think she understands being poor or lower middle class given she's spent so little time there recently.

    She runs in circles or those with great wealth, not something I have ever done, for certain.

    The only hawk I like is the kind that has feathers. My birding blogs: http://thisskysings.wordpress.com/ and canyonbirds.net

    by cany on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:02:45 PM PDT

  •  Ever since the untreatable case of PTSD (5+ / 0-)

    induced in the stenographic American 'news' media by the events of 9/11/01, its Beltway scribes have found it difficult to keep their wheels in the lane, preferring instead to regularly veer onto off-ramps at full throttle... even if those ramps often end in a crash barrier.

    Somewhere, at this very moment, there's an obsessed 'reporter' zeroing in on something really important (and all that it implies)... a suspected run in Lois Lerner's stocking.

  •  Re: (5+ / 0-)
    Fifty-five percent of Americans say that Hillary Clinton can relate to and understand the problems of average citizens as well as other presidential candidates can,...
    I hear you. But the "as well as other presidential candidates can" part is setting the bar low.
  •  As well as other candidates can? (5+ / 0-)

    Well, bearing in mind who the known other candidates are, that really is damning with faint praise. Scoring only 55% for relating "as well as" Cruz, Ryan, Paul et al is hardly a ringing endorsement.

  •  they're almost never/write (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

    decent wages don't eliminate jobs. Republicans eliminate jobs; and workers, and prospects, and then excuse it all and call for more austerity. there is no end to their ignorant, arrogant avarice. only political dinosaurs support their treachery.

    by renzo capetti on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:38:46 PM PDT

  •  Memes mean you don't have to think (7+ / 0-)

    that has been a trademark of the Beltway and larger traditional media for quite a while now.

    Allows them to pigeon hole every event, utterance, etc into their preconceived little cubicles.

    And they hate being bored. Their only coverage of politics is at the horse race level, not about policy or its impacts on the everyday people they seem so concerned that HRC be able to relate to.

    So they desperately want a horse race, hell their advertisers and corporate overlords demand a horse race for the ratings and ad revenue.

    So if that means constantly knocking Clinton until she becomes vulnerable then so be it.

    Blue is blue and must be that but yellow is none the worse for it - Carlisle Wheeling

    by kenwards on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:39:41 PM PDT

  •  I feel like you're trolling a portion of the site (9+ / 0-)

    hahahahahaaaa

    This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

    by mallyroyal on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:12:11 PM PDT

  •  It helps to know what they're afraid of. Now we... (0+ / 0-)

    It helps to know what they're afraid of. Now we know how to attack.

  •  im so excited (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IndyDemGirl, candideinnc, PALiberal1

    that kos is for hillary this time around

  •  Why are the American people (10+ / 0-)

    shoving Hillary Clinton down their own throats?!?!  

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:45:34 PM PDT

  •  Not trying to be unpatriotic (3+ / 0-)

    But what if we tried, just once, running a candidate for president who isn't a millionaire?

    May you always find water and shade.

    by Whimsical Rapscallion on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:50:03 PM PDT

  •  Substance Free Presidential Campaign Coverage (4+ / 0-)

    Only 2 years and four months of this left.

  •  They voted and decided to go with the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Remediator

    "hard time being rich" argument. Fake birth certificate came in 2nd, and Muslim finished 3rd.

  •  Well, lets just say she isn't living in a shack, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    candideinnc

    but she doesn't have an elevator for her cars and she Can remember how many houses she has, and call it good.

  •  FDR - rich! Also signed progressive legislation - (3+ / 0-)

    shouldn't Hilary take a page out of that playbook?

    "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

    by We Shall Overcome on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:59:59 PM PDT

  •  Must be a swell gig being a politico (0+ / 0-)

    "Reporting" without research, facts, or accounting.

    Think of all the millions of $ and millions of hours that were spent covering the Republican primary in 2012, and it all added up to a big pile of who gives a fuck.

  •  Beltway types aren't the only ones riffing this... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Swig Mcjigger, AlexDrew, emelyn

    Beltway types aren't the only ones riffing this nonsense, Kos.

    I'll wager without looking that commenters right on this diary are doing the same.

  •  We argue about symbols . . . (0+ / 0-)

    "as well as"
    "other"
    . . .

    people are hungry, people are out of work, people are in need.

    One way or the other . . .

    I want my vote to matter.

    "The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.”" -- Paul Dirac

    by Rikon Snow on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:04:43 PM PDT

  •  Beginning to see a pattern here. (0+ / 0-)

    No one that has ever accomplished anything, or made any money doing it, is allowed to run for President?  I don't begrudge her the money that she's earned, not a penny of it.  Except for maybe that Walmart thing...

  •  Hillary (7+ / 0-)

    I grew up in Edison Park, a couple of miles from where Hillary lived, and saw her often at the public library, the record store, the movie theatre in Park Ridge.  She was the child of an upper middle class family.  She was not born to great wealth.  She earned her position in life by hard work.  She is wealthy today because she and her husband earned their way to positions or responsibility.  I don't begrudge her the success she has had, and the people who do are simply jealous.  The press needs to look at the government and ask where the people got their money.  As I recall, the Bushes inherited.  The Romneys inherited.  McCain was a General's son who got his son into one of the military academies.  Reagan succeeded in movies on the basis of his looks.  And the current crop generally are monied families.    

    •  oh, yeah (0+ / 0-)

      And McCain and others married money.

    •  interestingly, Ronnie has the best claim of the (0+ / 0-)

      goppers to anything like "self-made" (good looks notwithstanding)--though of course this included the hard work of switching from being a Dem to being a red-baiting blacklist-loving R.  And before Ronnie?  Dick Nixon.

      Actually, if we're including failed nominees, I don't know if Bob Dole had a connected background.

      But if "born to wealth" is a disqualifier, we also have to chuck all the Kennedys as well as the FDR and Teddy R.

      Honestly it's not clear there's a very strong correlation, historically, between birth privilege and policy positions among candidates.

  •  So she should keep saying this stuff? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

    If I read the diary correctly, Markos is saying that Hillary hasn't hurt herself with any of this cornpone Norma Rae bullshit.  Maybe she should keep doing it then.

    If it's not hurting her, why not stick with it and see if it pays off?

  •  as well as other presidential candidates can? (0+ / 0-)

    faint praise at its finest

    I bet Cantor had some polls he was holding on to, as well.

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:35:05 PM PDT

  •  like dean's scream most of this crap doesn't have (0+ / 0-)

    legs without their unchallenged radio advantage

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:35:18 PM PDT

  •  "Screaming" meme is about the size of it. It is... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tuffie

    "Screaming" meme is about the size of it. It is now purity "street cred" to hammer this Democratic Party member. She is a million times better than a Bush or Santorum or Barasso or whoeverthefuck Republicaner.

  •  And most of SIly Kos plays along. (0+ / 0-)

    So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard

    by illinifan17 on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:39:02 PM PDT

  •  HRC is not my first choice to be Prez, but I sure (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, AlexDrew

    as heck would vote for her before ANY repug.

    And I am Kilrain of the 20th Maine. And I damn all gentlemen. Whose only worth is their father's name And the sweat of a workin' man Steve Earle - Dixieland

    by shigeru on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:54:43 PM PDT

  •  Here is what is forgotten about (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Uncle Moji

    Hillary's "dead broke" comment:  Until Bill Clinton became president, he never earned more than $35,000 per year, which is what the governor of Arkansas was paid.  Heck, in the early 90s I made more than 35K per year.

    Yes, Hillary made good money as a top attorney, but they LOST a bundle in the White Water real estate bust.

    When Bill became president his salary jumped to $200K while Hillary's salary as First Lady was ZERO now.  I know real estate salesmen who make more than 200K per year.  The salary was so paltry that Congress DOUBLED it to 400K for the winner of the next election.  But, too late for Bill.

    Then SCOTUS ruled 8-0 that the president could be sued civilly by Paula Jones.   Do you know how fast 200K disappears at $800/per hour attorney's fees?

    So, it IS entirely possibly the Clinton's were "dead broke" when they left the WH.  The fact that they had great earnings potential after leaving the WH is irrelevant; all president's do.

    Hillary did get a job as a US Senator at $175K per year but, again, those real estate salesmen do much better.

    In fact, the poor woman could net catch a break because, as I recall, Congress had to LOWER the salary of the Secretary of State's office so that Hillary could take the appointment because the Constitution prohibits an elected official from moving into a government position that pays more, which the SecState job did compared to a Senator.

    She spoke clumsily, but she spoke the truth.

  •  Why is it worse for Hillary to get rich from (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Remediator, Uncle Moji, AlexDrew

    book sales and speaking fees than for the Kochs to get rich from oil company subsidies paid for by you and me?

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 04:12:55 PM PDT

  •  Why can't we just admit it was a stupid thing to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gulfgal98, Lepanto

    say?

    Our economy is still a wreck and the unemployed just got cut off. People are hurting financially, still, and we as a party have to somehow convince them that we'll make it better. It did make her look out of touch.

    She's not the nominee. That is a point of fact. We're still  over a year away from any real primary action. I could understand all of this cheer-leading for her if she was the nominee. But she was inevitable once before, and her campaign turned out to be a disaster. What if she hires Mark Penn again? Still feel confident about "President Hillary Clinton?"

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 04:31:08 PM PDT

    •  SMH. No Mark Penn. Sorry. (0+ / 0-)

      As for Mark Penn:

      Three of his key political advisers — Jim Messina, Jeremy Bird and Mitch Stewart — have gone to super PACs supporting Hillary.

      David Plouffe, the president’s former top political adviser, said Hillary could call him for advice and told Bloomberg’s Al Hunt that “there’s very little oxygen” for another Democrat to challenge her.

      http://www.nytimes.com/...

      A key ally of President Obama has joined a newly revamped Democratic super PAC that plans to advance Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential ambitions.

      Jim Messina, who managed Obama's campaign in 2012, will serve as co-chairman of Priorities USA Action, a liberal super PAC that supported the president's re-election with hard-hitting ads that slammed Republican rival Mitt Romney's business record. Former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm also will co-chair the group.

      http://www.usatoday.com/...

      http://www.newrepublic.com/...

      New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

      by AlexDrew on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 07:15:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Republicans are throwing things (0+ / 0-)

    at the girl candidate.  

    They are picking on her.  I think it may backfire.  

    I fully expect that idiot Issa to begin hearings on the death of Vince Foster any day now.  

    Hillary could run.  Or not.  If she does, there may be a vigorous primary.  Or not.  

    It's early.  But she's in the catbird seat and the Pukes are writhing in their powerlessness.  Nobody they got can beat her because everybody they got is nuts.

    "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

    by Remediator on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 04:38:37 PM PDT

  •  My thoughts on the beltway media (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PALiberal1

    No one important gives a shit what they say.  If I ran a campaign, Politico would be religated to the bathroom, if that.  Seriously, how many people suscribe to it and have a ZIP Code that doesn't begin with 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 220, 221, or 222?

    I would much rather read papers like The Plain Dealer, The Denver Post or The Orlando Sentenal since they talk about issues voters actually care about compared to Politico and, to a lesser extent, The Washington Post (although the latter does cover local issues in Virginia).

  •  "meme" (0+ / 0-)

    Stop using this word when you have no idea what it means. This is popping up all over the place. It's a bandwagon of "memes," out there and the majority of writers do not know the meaning yet throw it in willy-nilly.  Ask Richard Dawson, who coined the word, what it means...then you may use it.

  •  Republican Stew! (0+ / 0-)

    A problem I see, particularly here, is that I cannot distinguish the comments of the trolls from the greenies. This gives trolls cover to further the right wing agenda. The greenies have solid questions but they open the trollgates.

  •  I posted elsewhere but here goes: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Remediator, emelyn

    Schreiber in New Republic, citing the latest Gallup (yeah Gallup, so it must be wrong; have at it, unskewers):

    Democrats are more enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton than ever. Her favorability rating within the party stood at 90 percent in the latest Gallup poll, versus 81 percent this time eight years ago. A Wall Street Journal survey of Democrats during the book tour found that their opinion of Clinton has vastly improved since late 2007. Many more Democrats now consider her knowledgeable (88 percent versus 76 percent), compassionate (80 versus 69), easygoing and likeable (67 versus 49), aligned with them on the issues (76 versus 61), and honest and straightforward (75 versus 53).

    More interestingly, Clinton’s popularity turns out to be highest in places you might least expect. She consistently performs better among liberals than among moderate and conservative Democrats, though it was the former who deserted her six years ago.1 A recent CNN poll found that only 11 percent of Democrats prefer a candidate who is more liberal. Put it all together—the numbers, the enthusiasm, the unlikely converts—and it’s a striking turnaround for a candidate who, when her opponent famously proclaimed her “likeable enough” in 2008, discovered that less than half her party agreed.

    It would seem DK, amazingly, is not the country, or even the party ...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site