Hillary’s wealth of political mediocrity emerges … again

posted at 12:01 pm on June 24, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

In the two weeks of Hillary Clinton’s re-entry in pop and political culture with her book tour, she has demonstrated a remarkable inability to connect with people, to communicate effectively, and to even comprehend the damage she’s doing to herself. Any other politician with this kind of fortnight would find it fortunate to be called a mediocrity. To make this point, let’s start with the contrarian view. Bloomberg’s Jonathan Bernstein wants to remind everyone of “Hillary’s Mad [Political] Skillz” today, but doesn’t exactly make a compelling case:

Klein sums up Hillary Clinton this way: “Her political career has involved winning a Senate seat in New York over a weak Republican opponent in a year that Al Gore carried the state by 25 points — and squandering a massive lead against candidate Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic nomination battle.”

Well, sort of. She also managed to win a very valuable open Senate nomination despite not actually being from the state; she built an impressive lead in the 2008 nomination battle, crushing several candidates, only to come up just barely short; and she has now built what appears to be an unprecedented lead — outside of incumbent presidents and vice-presidents — for the presidential nomination.

In the words of Jules Winnfield, allow me to retort. Hillary rode a wave of public sympathy over the Lewinsky affair, the resurgent popularity of her husband, and her celebrity to carpetbag into what was otherwise a dull Senate primary in New York, along with the then-invincible Clinton machine, to win a US Senate seat in deep-blue New York. She built an impressive lead in the 2008 nomination with the same Clinton machine against a field of non-entities, only to blow the lead and the nomination to a one-term Senate backbencher who had an even less impressive resumé than she did. She has a massive lead now in a race of one, because everyone else is smart enough to lay low until 2015.

Philip Klein comes much closer to the mark:

After previously trying to justify her six-figure speaking fees by claiming she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke” when leaving the White House, she’s come under fire for stating that she wasn’t that “well-off.” This has led to a spate of stories about whether the Clintons’ enormous wealth would weigh on her presidential ambitions in a nation with growing populist sentiment. But the deeper takeaway from her recent dustups isn’t her wealth, but that she’s an overrated politician. …

My operating assumption is that by the time the campaign rolls around, Hillary will find a way to answer questions about her wealth. It’ll probably go something like: “Bill and I have been fortunate enough to have a lot of opportunities, but I recognize that a lot of poor and middle class Americans aren’t so lucky, which is why I’m fighting for [insert redistributionist policy here].”

But all sorts of questions are going to come up over the course of a long campaign — some easily anticipated, others surprising. Her recent tone-deaf answers on questions about wealth speak to the fact that she’s a lot more politically clumsy than people assume.

My operating assumption is that she would have come up with that answer by … oh, the day after her “dead broke” gaffe with Diane Swayer. Instead, she’s still trying to pretend that she’s had it tough her whole life, right up to almost yesterday, apparently in the belief that Americans will identify with her “struggle.” That’s why she tried telling the Guardian that her wealth — unlike others — was made by “dint of hard work.” In my column for The Week, I explore that claim a little, and show why it’s poison for Democrats in the midterms:

“The dint of hard work,” as Clinton describes it, consisted of record-breaking bonuses for three (probably ghostwritten) memoirs (two for her, one for Bill), plus massive fees for delivering speeches written in large part by aides. Despite her observation that she pays taxes just like the next guy, the profits from this hard work went into tax shelters that the Clintons claim to oppose as the refuge of One Percenters. Bloomberg reported that the Clintons managed to ease their struggles by exploiting the same estate-tax loopholes they oppose as a form of “evading taxes,” as do Democrats in general in their income-inequality crusade.

Not too many of the hoi polloi will identify with that kind of “struggle” faced by the Clintons, and that’s precisely the problem for Democrats this year, as well as in 2016. Ever since Mitt Romney began his run for the presidency, President Obama and the Democrats made him a personal target for their income-inequality political messaging campaign. They painted him as a clueless One Percenter who couldn’t possibly relate to middle-class voters. They spent the summer of 2012 attacking the business he built, even though it created middle-class jobs and invested in private-sector success stories like Staples.

With ObamaCare a disaster, the economy still stagnant, and Obama’s foreign policy collapsing, Democrats running in red states this year need to maintain the demagogic income-inequality theme. They have little else to cling to. Suddenly, though, the party’s presumed front-runner for 2016 has turned into a comic figure, someone akin to what Democrats imagined Romney to be. She laments the struggle of earning eight figures in a single year after leaving the White House and entering the Senate, while giving Sawyer a guided tour of her $5 million home in Washington, D.C. It doesn’t get much more tone deaf than this.

Hillary Clinton is a living example of the hypocrisy of Democratic rhetoric and the attacks on Romney’s character, at a moment in time when Democrats can least afford it. Chris Cillizza notes that Clinton is handing Republicans the issue “on a silver, ahem, platter.” Ouch.

She’s the poster child for income inequality and the cluelessness of the One Percenters, which all but eliminates that argument for Democrats as long as she has her Unprecedented Lead in the Field Of One. Her mediocrity and cluelessness will expose the hypocrisy and the demagoguery of the Democratic Party’s class warfare, all the more so to the extent that Democrats are forced to explain away Hillary’s bumbling. Without that, they’re toast in November, and possibly in 2016 as well.

Update: Ana Marie Cox believes that Hillary’s dissembling is an even greater threat:

The real mystery of her present disingenuousness is that there’s really nothing shameful, in and of itself, about the kind of wealth the Clintons have accumulated. As Bill himself said just the other day, “Americans don’t resent other people’s successes.” And polls show that Americans still love rich people! In 2012, 92% of people describing themselves as middle-class and 84% of self-described lower-income people said they admired the wealthy. Whenever Hillary denies she one of them, she just proves the point of the 34% of Americans who say the wealthy are less honest than the rest of us.

Simply being rich isn’t insulting; pretending you aren’t is.

Clinton’s ongoing misrepresentations – an unwillingness to accept and acknowledge that her life in politics has been not just educational but lucrative – reflects the central conundrum of Hillary Clinton, campaigner: she thinks she’s earned your vote because she’s worked hard and studied and has a 4.0 GPA, but she doesn’t quite believe that votes always go to those who’ve earned them. Indeed, that was, for the Hillary camp, the lesson of 2008.

And so she undercuts her legitimately impressive career with false modesty about the very quality that one can quantify: wealth. The thing about running for president and not head of the class is that she can’t show us her grades or awards of merit. Her boasts of competency – 3am phone calls and navigating world diplomacy – require a certain amount of faith in her word; when she tells us she’s broke, we know she’s lying.

It makes her look like she’ll say anything to get her hands on power, and that’s not exactly a winning perception in American politics.

Update: Made a couple of minor edits and added a qualifying statement in the original conclusion regarding Democratic apologists for Hillary.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Killary is medically, and mentally unstable.

Pork-Chop on June 24, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Calling her mediocre is too kind.

ConstantineXI on June 24, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Still an old hag.

txdoc on June 24, 2014 at 12:07 PM

If she’s elected, what sort of a job will the younger Thunder Thighs get???…

PatriotRider on June 24, 2014 at 12:09 PM

If you look at the overall reviews for her book as a passion index (who is REALLY for her vs. who is REALLY against her), she’s running nearly 3:1 against with almost 1,000 reviews. I don’t think that bodes well for her.

UnderstandingisPower on June 24, 2014 at 12:11 PM

The Clintons corrupted their way to millions and they call it “dint of hard work” Anyone that would support this old hag would support Satan.

jainphx on June 24, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Bashar al-Assad hailed as a “reformer” by H-Rod in the midst of ‘Arab Spring’…nuff said.

Afterseven on June 24, 2014 at 12:12 PM

It makes her look like she’ll say anything to get her hands on power, and that’s not exactly a winning perception in American politics.

I thought the dodging sniper fire already covered that.

Flange on June 24, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Scumhag

Schadenfreude on June 24, 2014 at 12:14 PM

That entire family is a bane on the land.

Same with the Bushs, Kennedys and obamas.

Keep them and suffer, eternally.

Schadenfreude on June 24, 2014 at 12:15 PM

OT – Kirsten Powers, Hume and Steele share this. To Hades with all 3, but first they need to get scabies, and itch eternally.

80% of all the illegal entrants are not kids, you utter fools.

Schadenfreude on June 24, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Update: Ana Marie Cox believes that Hillary’s dissembling is an even greater threat:

Jeez, this early and she’s already lost Ana Marie Cox?

rbj on June 24, 2014 at 12:17 PM

Instead, she’s still trying to pretend that she’s had it tough her whole life, right up to almost yesterday, apparently in the belief that Americans will identify with her “struggle,”

Well, she was six by the time her parents got around to picking her name. She was shot at when visiting Bosnia. And since leaving public life, she’s been relegated to travel by lesser models of Gulfstreams.

Seriously, the woman hasn’t driven herself since 1996. She’s led an incredibly privileged life. Her “hard work” included lying to the public about her serial rapist husband, Rose Law firm billing records, Travelgate, and stealing public property from the White House.

Happy Nomad on June 24, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Is there any doubt in your mind now that not only will Hildabeast NOT be President, he isn’t going to be the Democrat nominee?

This is what we saw in 2008, a befuddled fumbler who thought she was attending a coronation, not participating in a campaign. To the point she got beat badly by a neophyte community organizer with less of a record than even she had.

Hillary isn’t smart. She isn’t likeable. She has no charisma at all. She’s the most unelectable candidate in the history of politics.

ConstantineXI on June 24, 2014 at 12:21 PM

One of Hillary’s problems she is opposed by both the (united in this case) Republicans and a significant portion of the Democrats, including all the progressive and much of the democrat media, intelligentsia, and apparatchiks. She don’t get no respect. Except for George Soros and Alice Walton, among other billionaires.

Viator on June 24, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Hillary will not run because without the obama she can never win.

They will NOT support her. The obamas hate the Clintons. One of them wants to be the Pimp of the Party.

For obama to be that, he needs to knock out the Clintons and put an obama-frontboy/girl in place.

Warrenhonta/Booker, or such, for the female/gay victimhood ticket

Schadenfreude on June 24, 2014 at 12:26 PM

The real mystery of her present disingenuousness is that there’s really nothing shameful, in and of itself, about the kind of wealth the Clintons have accumulated.

Actually, there is. The advances on their books are simply political pay-offs by another name. If a drug cartel overlord had received a similar advance for his memoirs, it would be considered money laundering.

Ditto for their speeches. If you’ve ever had the misfortune to listen to one, there is no sage advice offered, no cutting-edge analysis of the world’s affairs. It’s just a string of platitudes no more remarkable than a typical college commencement speech. Once again, these are political pay-offs. The entity in question has purchased influence.

The accumulated wealth of the Clintons is from a legalized form of bribery. Legal, but hardly admirable.

dreadnought62 on June 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Except for George Soros and Alice Walton, among other billionaires.

Viator on June 24, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Soros doesn’t want her either and didn’t in 2008, hence a huge reason why she didn’t win.

He wants another empty headed vessel like Obama who will implement his “destroy America” agenda at Warp Speed.

Soros is overdue for his trip to Hell. He has to act quickly.

ConstantineXI on June 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Hillary isn’t smart. She isn’t likeable. She has no charisma at all. She’s the most unelectable candidate in the history of politics.

ConstantineXI on June 24, 2014 at 12:21 PM

I beg to differ. That cackle of hers is a siren’s call to stupid liberal women. They are drawn to her because they too are fat and ugly with zero personality.

Happy Nomad on June 24, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Hillary will not run because without the obama she can never win.

They will NOT support her. The obamas hate the Clintons. One of them wants to be the Pimp of the Party.

For obama to be that, he needs to knock out the Clintons and put an obama-frontboy/girl in place.

Warrenhonta/Booker, or such, for the female/gay victimhood ticket

Schadenfreude on June 24, 2014 at 12:26 PM

There is either going to be a third Barack Obama term or Mooch will be the nominee.

ConstantineXI on June 24, 2014 at 12:29 PM

It makes her look like she’ll say anything to get her hands on power, and that’s not exactly a winning perception in American politics.

Not True

“It makes her look like she’ll say anything to get her hands on power, and that’s been a winning trait in American politics among progressives for quite a while now.”

There. All fixed.

ROCnPhilly on June 24, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Keep talking, Mrs Clinton.

Please.

TimBuk3 on June 24, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Warrenhonta/Booker, or such, for the female/gay victimhood ticket

Schadenfreude on June 24, 2014 at 12:26 PM

Yep, or one of those Castro brothers, to be voted in by all of “Obama’s children” (the illegal entrants).

Brat on June 24, 2014 at 12:33 PM

she has demonstrated a remarkable inability to connect with people, to communicate effectively

…by golly…she’s Mitt Romney…without the Brylcreem

JugEarsButtHurt on June 24, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Soros doesn’t want her either and didn’t in 2008, hence a huge reason why she didn’t win.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/02/George-Soros-Wal-Mart-Heiress-Flood-Hillary-Clinton-Super-PAC-With-Cash

Viator on June 24, 2014 at 12:34 PM

Keep talking, Mrs Clinton.

Please.

TimBuk3 on June 24, 2014 at 12:33 PM

I hope she IS the nominee. Every time she opens her mouth she becomes less liked.

The only time she was “popular” was when she was the “victim” of Billy Jeff’s indiscretions.

ConstantineXI on June 24, 2014 at 12:35 PM

It’s truly amazing that as broke as the Clintons are, they travel around the country an awful lot and yet probably have never carried a piece of luggage through the airport or stood in line to rent a car.

tommer74 on June 24, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Hillary lost to Obama in 2008 for one reason and only one reason: identity politics. It’s what the Democrats always run on, and in 2008 it turned its ugly head around and bit Hillary in the ass. The blacks chose one of their own who wasn’t a media-grubbing hog as was the case with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

HiJack on June 24, 2014 at 12:37 PM

With bams recent comments on women who vote dim are smarter, and moochie’s comment about putting a women in the White House, they are setting something up to present a woman contender for the next election.
Hmmm, who could it be? Who’d get the most satisfaction of saying (once again), “In your face, Killery”.

31giddyup on June 24, 2014 at 12:38 PM

Soros doesn’t want her either and didn’t in 2008, hence a huge reason why she didn’t win.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/02/George-Soros-Wal-Mart-Heiress-Flood-Hillary-Clinton-Super-PAC-With-Cash

Viator on June 24, 2014 at 12:34 PM

That’s the stance he has to APPEAR to have right now. Soros can afford to burn millions to appear to not be stabbing Hildabeast in the back. It won’t matter.

Soros doesn’t want a Clinton. A Clinton will change course based on polling. Remember Bill signed welfare reform because the polls forced him. A President Hillary would not keep forcing the same failed America-killing policies down our throats after poll after poll shows no confidence for 8 years.

A Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a true anti-America ideologue.

ConstantineXI on June 24, 2014 at 12:38 PM

With bams recent comments on women who vote dim are smarter, and moochie’s comment about putting a women in the White House, they are setting something up to present a woman contender for the next election.
Hmmm, who could it be? Who’d get the most satisfaction of saying (once again), “In your face, Killery”.

31giddyup on June 24, 2014 at 12:38 PM

Mooch `16

Or she will pull your arms out of your sockets.

ConstantineXI on June 24, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Revealed !

The ineptitude saga of Slick’s privileged doormat!

News at ten…

viking01 on June 24, 2014 at 12:39 PM

I beg to differ. That cackle of hers is a siren’s call to stupid liberal women. They are drawn to her because they too are fat and ugly with zero personality.

Happy Nomad on June 24, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Except that those stupid liberal women will vote for anybody with a “D” after their name.

HiJack on June 24, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Most people (most – not all) have forgotten what a terrible candidate she was in 2008.

She stunk,,, and she still stinks – the more you know her – the less you like her.

jake-the-goose on June 24, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Joe Klein’s description of the Benghazi fable describes the Clintons in a nutshell: She learns the truth about the terrorist attack from knowledgeable reports she receives; in a telephone conversation with Obama, he instructs her to use the video fabrication instead; she resists, calls Bill. Bill at first says she can’t do that, they consider her political options, and decide going along with the lie is the least unpalatable for her future. She then accedes to the lie and propagates it, even after the fable has been widely exposed, and even to the families of and over the coffins of four murdered Americans. Added to the other well documented lies of this woman over decades, the real question is: of what deceit is she incapable?

Barnestormer on June 24, 2014 at 12:40 PM

of what deceit is she incapable?

Barnestormer on June 24, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Well, she couldn’t really lie about being a man. I think.

HiJack on June 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Can we stipulate that she’s been a lying b1tch since well before anyone around here had ever heard of her?

Midas on June 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM

The advances on their books are simply political pay-offs by another name.

dreadnought62 on June 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM

In fairness, Hillary’s Living History and Bill’s My Life were both big best-sellers. As far as I know, they earned out their advances.

Hillary’s new book is a flop where the publisher looks like they are going to be throwing money down the drain, but I don’t think the same can be said about her previous book.

J.S.K. on June 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM

I have stated countless of times.. Hillary will not be the nominee; whether by choice or the loony left punishing her for whatever the soup di jour is at the time.

Democrats worried about a rebellion on the left will opt for a Mexican/Native American Transexual with 3 legs who spontenously has abortions as their nominee…

You can’t offend anyone these days

Carlos Spicy Weiner on June 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM

He wants another empty headed vessel like Obama who will implement his “destroy America” agenda at Warp Speed.

ConstantineXI on June 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Paging Elizabeth Warren.

Happy Nomad on June 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Mooch `16

Or she will pull your arms out of your sockets.

ConstantineXI on June 24, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Smiling as she does it too.

31giddyup on June 24, 2014 at 12:44 PM

It’s truly amazing that as broke as the Clintons are, they travel around the country an awful lot and yet probably have never carried a piece of luggage through the airport or stood in line to rent a car.

tommer74 on June 24, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Hillary hasn’t driven herself since 1996. But don’t judge. They get in and out of their Gulfstreams and limos just like the rest of us ordinary folk.

Happy Nomad on June 24, 2014 at 12:46 PM

There is either going to be a third Barack Obama term or Mooch will be the nominee.

ConstantineXI on June 24, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Mishie is really the Dem’s ideal candidate. In spite of (or maybe because of) the fact she has no political experience other than Wife Of, very little relevant work experience (and what little there is mostly related to Wife Of), they would run her in a heartbeat to retain all that Race Card Powah
and new, improved First Wymynz power,
plus all that “continuing the legacy of the Most Maligned and Obstructed President EVAH”
PLUS those incredibly toned arms.
Winning.

Will the money boys play? That’s all that matters.

Dolce Far Niente on June 24, 2014 at 12:46 PM

so she undercuts her legitimately impressive career

OK, did I miss something?

Did she have some other career that she’s kept hidden from view all these years?

Because the Hillary career that I’m familiar with doesn’t have anything in common with a “legitimately impressive” one.

Unless “marrying a successful politician and acting as his personal attack dog to keep his bimbo eruptions at bay” qualifies as such, I suppose.

VelvetElvis on June 24, 2014 at 12:46 PM

I’ll state the converse;

If Republicans find a smart, principled, witty candidate who is able to speak extemporaneously, Hillary is toast.

I am a waiting to hear the same arguments Democrats used about Romney’s wealth come back to haunt them.

Think about it: Hillary is a product of the media. Everything she states has a purpose. The whole “I am poor” act was an attempt to deflect from the class warfare rhetoric Democrats successfully used last time.

I can’t wait to see the media and Hillary twist themselves into pretzels explaining why those same arguments don’t apply to a family that speaks for 40 minutes and receives a $500- $1 million dollar check on the way out.

Marcus Traianus on June 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM

They were dead broke in the sense their rich NY friends had to buy the election, rather than they do it themselves.

formwiz on June 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Barack Obama 2012 — “You didn’t build that.

Hillary Clinton 2014 — “I built mine, but you didn’t build that.”

Yep, that’s a great talking point to throw out at the public going into the 2016 election….

jon1979 on June 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Hillary hasn’t driven herself since 1996. But don’t judge. They get in and out of their put on their Gulfstreams and limos one leg at a time just like the rest of us ordinary folk.

Happy Nomad on June 24, 2014 at 12:46 PM

FFIY

Dolce Far Niente on June 24, 2014 at 12:48 PM

There is either going to be a third Barack Obama term or Mooch will be the nominee.

ConstantineXI on June 24, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Michelle Obama would be an even bigger bomb as a candidate than Hillary Clinton is. At least Hillary got into Yale on her own merits, which is more than anyone can say about Michelle, who was clearly an aff*rmative act*on admission. Also, Michelle only practiced law for a few years, as a junior associate, before getting canned. Every job she had after that was a political patronage pay-off, created specifically for her non-existent talents, that did not involve the practice of law.

Michelle isn’t particularly bright and doesn’t perform well under pressure (“I’m not a good test taker” she claims), a fact that would quickly become apparent to voters whenever she had to speak without the benefit of a script or teleprompter. And as much as the media would do its damnedest to hide/downplay her gaffes, there would probably be too many even for them to be able to make her into a credible candidate.

AZCoyote on June 24, 2014 at 12:49 PM

Most people (most – not all) have forgotten what a terrible candidate she was in 2008.

She stunk,,, and she still stinks – the more you know her – the less you like her.

jake-the-goose on June 24, 2014 at 12:40 PM

I must know her better than anyone else alive …

ShainS on June 24, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Soros doesn’t want a Clinton. A Clinton will change course based on polling. Remember Bill signed welfare reform because the polls forced him.

A Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a true anti-America ideologue.

ConstantineXI on June 24, 2014 at 12:38 PM

Actually, Willie signed the bill after Newt told him any veto would be overridden.

And Hillary! is as anti-American as the Choom Gang.

She’s just more incompetent.

formwiz on June 24, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Most people (most – not all) have forgotten what a terrible candidate she was in 2008.

She stunk,,, and she still stinks – the more you know her – the less you like her.

jake-the-goose on June 24, 2014 at 12:40 PM

I must know her better than anyone else alive …

ShainS on June 24, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Don’t underrate your competition.

Barnestormer on June 24, 2014 at 12:53 PM

She has a massive lead now in a race of one, because everyone else is smart enough to lay low until 2015.

Good one, Ed. In fact, there’s humor laced througout the article. However, you missed the apostrophe after “others” (s/b “unlike others’”).

MisterElephant on June 24, 2014 at 12:54 PM

Hillary has been nowhere and has done nothing. Why this poor sick Republic continues to glorify these worthless slobs defies logic.

rplat on June 24, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Soros doesn’t want a Clinton. A Clinton will change course based on polling. Remember Bill signed welfare reform because the polls forced him.

ConstantineXI on June 24, 2014 at 12:38 PM

You’re engaging in revisionism there CXI. Clinton signed the welfare reform bill because he faced a veto override in Congress. At the time he made it clear that he was signing it with a gun to his head but when welfare reform worked- well the Dems immediately made the claim that Clinton was the mastermind behind the initiative.

Happy Nomad on June 24, 2014 at 12:58 PM

Her mediocrity and cluelessness

Won’t matter.

Barack has set the bar LOW enough, any moron could get elected.

He did.

GarandFan on June 24, 2014 at 12:58 PM

She’s the poster child for income inequality and the cluelessness of the One Percenters

Her boasts of competency – 3am phone calls and navigating world diplomacy – require a certain amount of faith in her word; when she tells us she’s broke, we know she’s lying.

My biggest issue with her is her dishonesty. Next is the unethical label that has followed her since Watergate. Top that with a dose of arrogance that makes you want to vomit and I have absolutely no use for her in any governmental capacity.

Here’s to her losing big time.

geezerintraining on June 24, 2014 at 12:59 PM

Barnestormer on June 24, 2014 at 12:40 PM

If Klein’s account of the Benghazi fiasco is accurate, think of what an opportunity Hillary Clinton missed. If she had refused Obama’s order to lie and blame the videotape, and instead quietly resigned as SOS, she would have been a hero. The media still would have carried Obama to re-election, but in the Benghazi congressional hearings afterwards, Clinton could have revealed the truth about what happened and, in doing so, she would have been able to position herself as both a strong leader (who would not be cowed by her boss Obama) and a person of integrity (who refused to lie to the American public about AQ’s resurgence, just so Obama could win an election).

Doing the right thing would have essentially assured Hillary Clinton of the presidency in 2016. Instead, she went along with the lie, and now she looks like a craven fool.

AZCoyote on June 24, 2014 at 12:59 PM

Hillary has been nowhere and has done nothing.

rplat on June 24, 2014 at 12:57 PM

LIAR!!!!! She logged more air miles than any other Secretary of States (as the rat-eared wonder calls the job).

So, she has done nothing all over the place!

Happy Nomad on June 24, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Hillary’s dissembling is an even greater threat…

Pffft. Lying hasn’t slowed down Obama and his gang. Why would it slow down Shrillary?

petefrt on June 24, 2014 at 1:02 PM

I’ll state the converse;

If Republicans find a smart, principled, witty female candidate who is able to speak extemporaneously, Hillary is toast.

Marcus Traianus on June 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM

FIFY. We need to run a female Governor (for President or VP) to neutralize the women’s vote in 2016, without which Hillary is not the smartest woman in America. Governor Nikki Haley for VP?

Steve Z on June 24, 2014 at 1:02 PM

I’m sure glad I’m not a democrat, since apparently the party is content to try and force that woman down the voter’s throats, again. I hope she promotes that book of hers and talks about how bad she’s had to struggle for the next two and a half years. Maybe she could ask Sting to be her running mate.

scalleywag on June 24, 2014 at 1:02 PM

Killary is so yesterday.

OT, the porn diva’s been arrested!!!!!

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/teen-porn-diva-busted-for-underage-sex-687435

ToddPA on June 24, 2014 at 1:03 PM

Seems to me Mitt Romney made his fortune by “dint of hard work,” which paid off for him and his family AND created boatloads of jobs for many people.

Hillary…not so much.

marybel on June 24, 2014 at 1:05 PM

LIAR!!!!! She logged more air miles than any other Secretary of States (as the rat-eared wonder calls the job).

So, she has done nothing all over the place!

Happy Nomad on June 24, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Touche.

rplat on June 24, 2014 at 1:06 PM

Ed, You’re missing one thing… She is a woman. And any negative presentation of her 1%er status will be immediately construed as a sexist attack on successful women across the country. “Why are Republicans scared of successful women? Next on the Evening News with Diane Swayer.” “GOP wants to keep Hillary in the kitchen” etc etc etc

lone.rebel on June 24, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Mooch `16

Or she will pull your arms out of your sockets.

ConstantineXI on June 24, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Mooche practices this constantly on taxpayer lobsters….

viking01 on June 24, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Most people (most – not all) have forgotten what a terrible candidate she was in 2008.

She stunk,,, and she still stinks – the more you know her – the less you like her.

jake-the-goose on June 24, 2014 at 12:40 PM

She wasn’t even a good candidate in 2000 — People forget that she wasn’t a shoe-in until Rudy Giuliani left the race after being diagnosed with prostate cancer, and that his replacement, Rick Lazio, got hit with the same strategy the Democrats and the big media will try to use on the Republicans in 2016 during the Buffalo debate moderated by Tim Russert — Lazio’s attacks on Hillary were portrayed as him being ‘mean to a woman’, so that any attack on Hillary for the rest of the campaign was deemed to be part of the sexist “War on Women”.

The media didn’t make the same claim when Obama snarked at Hillary during the 2008 primary debates, and they won’t do that for her in a 2016 Democratic presidential primary, even if Liz Warren isn’t her opponent, and she has to face Martin O’Malley or some other male progressive fave instead.

jon1979 on June 24, 2014 at 1:10 PM

If she’s elected, what sort of a job will the younger Thunder Thighs get???…
PatriotRider on June 24, 2014 at 12:09 PM

Attorney General.

marybel on June 24, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Calling her mediocre is too kind.

ConstantineXI on June 24, 2014 at 12:04 PM

He scaled the grade.

She is politically poor. ;)

dogsoldier on June 24, 2014 at 1:14 PM

So, she has done nothing all over the place!

Happy Nomad on June 24, 2014 at 1:01 PM

She has actually gotten sloppy dribbly drunk all over the place, but that’s a rather low bar, as accomplishments go…

dogsoldier on June 24, 2014 at 1:16 PM

marybel on June 24, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Press secretary. Or ambassador to the alphabet networks.

dogsoldier on June 24, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Play it, always

Schadenfreude on June 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM

The other clan of the land

Schadenfreude on June 24, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Hillary would call character witnesses but they all died conveniently…

/

viking01 on June 24, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Michelle isn’t particularly bright and doesn’t perform well under pressure (“I’m not a good test taker” she claims), a fact that would quickly become apparent to voters whenever she had to speak without the benefit of a script or teleprompter. And as much as the media would do its damnedest to hide/downplay her gaffes, there would probably be too many even for them to be able to make her into a credible candidate.

AZCoyote on June 24, 2014 at 12:49 PM

No, they won’t run her for preezy immediately. But they probably already have enough chits and levers to put her into a senate seat somewhere, or certainly, a house seat. After all, look at the quality of the competition! After a few more years of feeding at the public trough at one of these lesser jobs, she’d be ready for the big campaign.

bofh on June 24, 2014 at 1:37 PM

The real mystery of her present disingenuousness is that there’s really nothing shameful, in and of itself, about the kind of wealth the Clintons have accumulated.

Yes, there

is

shame!

Specifically – the speaking fees were pay offs for the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

Glass Steagall led directly to ‘too big to fail.’

The crony capitalists on wall street then payed off their favorite ex-prez, and started greasing the wheels for Hillary.

How much more shame do you need?

Deafdog on June 24, 2014 at 1:40 PM

…now she looks like a craven fool.

AZCoyote on June 24, 2014 at 12:59 PM

Craven? I don’t believe courage had anything to do with her calculation. Venal would be more accurate. Obama extended an implicit political bribe and all she was doing, in consultation with Bill, was a cold cost/benefit analysis in Clinton currency: political power. Her conclusion: turning on the president (who was even more black than Bill) and compromising Obama’s terrorism-is-dead meme in the late stage of an election campaign would impose a cost on her political future more than the lie would, even if exposed. Whether that was a foolish, as well as venal, calculation is yet to be seen.

Barnestormer on June 24, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Legitimately impressive career? What? Really?

Techster64 on June 24, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Barnestormer on June 24, 2014 at 12:40 PM

It is not Joe Klein; it’s Ed Klein. Joe Klein is the moonbat author of the novel, Primary Colors and is a regular MSLSD contributor. Joe Klein has been declared an “enemy of the left” by Media Matters and others after his 2005 biography of Hillary, and his book about Obama, The Amateur.

TarheelBen on June 24, 2014 at 2:00 PM

TarheelBen on June 24, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Oops! Now I’M getting them mixed up. I meant that Ed Klein has been declared an enemy of the left.

TarheelBen on June 24, 2014 at 2:01 PM

I hope this hag gets a blistering UTI that travels to her brain and finishes her off. Then bill can have a vegetable to molest instead of interns and other young impressionable (but extremely dumb) girls. (and young boys too probably)

Diluculo on June 24, 2014 at 2:09 PM

TarheelBen on June 24, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Thanks. I could have fact-checked myself instead of flying by memory. But I dekleined.

Barnestormer on June 24, 2014 at 2:09 PM

My favorite Onion video was a piece called something like: “US Condemned for pre-emptive use of Hillary Clinton.”

All I remember are the phrases “pseudo-folksy hand gestures” and “stiffly rehearsed stories about farmers she met who inspired her.”

And this was years ago. Some things never change.

LukeinNE on June 24, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Craven? I don’t believe courage had anything to do with her calculation. Venal would be more accurate.

Barnestormer on June 24, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Six or half-dozen, whatever. Craven and venal both apply, IMO. It was cowardly of Clinton to go along with Obama’s lie about the videotape. It would have taken some courage to refuse her boss (and put her own political future at risk), but she clearly didn’t have any.

I get the political calculation she and Bill made, I just think they miscalculated. Yes, it would have been dangerous to Hillary’s future political career if she had de-railed Obama’s re-election by resigning. But she could have resigned in a way that would have mitigated the damage to Obama, at least temporarily. She could have announced that she was leaving State to spend more time with her family, or some other vague nonsense. She didn’t have to state the real reason. The Benghazi attacks were on 9/11; the election was just 7 weeks away. She could have stonewalled the media about the real reason for her resignation for those weeks. Then, once Obama was safely re-elected, the inevitable congressional hearings into Benghazi. That’s when Hillary would have told what really happened — with reluctance (faux), of course, and great sadness. But since she was under oath, she would have had no choice but to reveal the truth about how Obama had ordered her to lie to the American public, and how she had refused and resigned instead.

She could have come off looking like a person of great strength and integrity, instead of like a spineless flunky.

AZCoyote on June 24, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Hillary Clinton is a living example of the hypocrisy of Democratic rhetoric

The LIV won’t care. They are more concerned about their social media, iPods, and whatever progressive trend is the most popular to hashtag at the moment. They will vote for her like she’s the most popular for homecoming queen. The LIV will care when the economy grinds to a halt from all the regressive government rules, Obamacare, and the crushing illegal immigration and they don’t have a job, home, or can eat. By then, it will be too late. I won’t shed a tear for them.

TulsAmerican on June 24, 2014 at 2:17 PM

A couple of things I remember from the Clinton white house:
people who passed her in the hall at the WH could not look at her. They had to avert their eyes, or as many did ducked into a doorway until she passed. I seem to remember that included their SS protection.
They used our military in their handsome uniforms to pass out food/drinks at their left wing parties. That’s how much respect she had for our military. Kind of like the Marine having to hold up the umbrella that covered 0bama while the Marine was in the rain.
When they left the WH she registered at an expensive store (just like a bride does) and asked all their sycophants/supporters to buy them china/silver and gifts of any kind. And of course if you wanted to be counted as their friend, and/or you ever wanted to run for any office, you had better be on their list of people who bought them gifts.

I WONDER IF THEY EVER PAID TAXES ON THOSE GIFTS?

Then of course as many (I think – cause I don’t have time to read all of the responses) have mentioned the Rose Law firm billing records and the missing IRS files that suddenly appeared in her bedroom. (Maybe she has lerner’s emails???)
The dems have put all their eggs in her basket and I hope we can take her down. This world is far too dangerous (thank U 0bama) and we need someone who knows what they are doing and not just a female because she’s a female.

Bambi on June 24, 2014 at 2:29 PM

She could have come off looking like a person of great strength and integrity, instead of like a spineless flunky.

AZCoyote on June 24, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Except that she was Secretary of State when a terrorist attack penetrated, despite repeated requests, virtually non-existent security in hostile territory on the anniversary of 9/11, a diplomatic outpost of still-mysterious purpose within her department, resulting in the death of four Americans. Is it plausible that Obama would have failed to point out any of that were she to try fobbing off the mess on him? Or that following a narrative pizzing match between the two, the critical black vote would have been lining up in droves for Hillary in 2016? I’ll concede that had Hillary exhibited the behavior you describe hypothetically, many would have regarded it as courageous. She had the opportunity, but not the ability.

Barnestormer on June 24, 2014 at 3:11 PM

I hope nobody in GOP listens to Ed’s analysis. So Hillary’s a poster child for how clueless and out-of-touch one-percent is. Tell me how pushing this forward help GOP. You do nothing but legitimize class warfare, and then what… convince the public that GOP are best people to tackle this “problem”? How would this argument go?

Here’s what Hillary would do… She would say: all my life I did this, and this, and that. And I said this horrible, stupid thing that only a moron would say. I take full responsibility for it.

Your move.

PBH on June 24, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Again, I suggest to all Democrats, that they show their sincerity about their quest for income equality, by introducing legislation to set all Federal employee salaries at the average income level of a private-sector employee in the US.

If they can’t pass that legislation, then they should show a good-faith effort to promote income equality by implementing the average wage for all employees at the DNC, from the Chair to the janitorial staff.

If they are not willing to do this in the areas they control, why should anyone think they really mean what they say? If they can’t do even this much to demonstrate good faith, then is their stated position nothing more than rank hypocrisy?

s1im on June 24, 2014 at 4:56 PM

Barnestormer on June 24, 2014 at 3:11 PM

No doubt Obama would have thrown Hillary under the bus and tried to blame the four deaths on her inept leadership of State, but do you really think he’s not eventually going to do that anyway? Also, once she (reluctantly) exposed Obama as a conniving liar willing to deliberately deceive the American people in order to win an election, his credibility would have taken a major hit. It would have looked like sour grapes at that point, after months of Obama and Rice blaming the video, for him to suddenly change his tune and say no, it was really all Hillary’s fault after all.

Anyway, it’s no secret the Obamas and Clintons despise each other. I’ll be very surprised in 2015 if we don’t start seeing excerpts from Barry’s upcoming presidential “autobiography” leaked to the media, including the portions in which Barry writes about how he was shocked and disappointed by Hillary’s performance at State.

We all know how Obama operates, and the Clintons know it as well as anybody. We’ll never know now how things might have turned out if Hillary had refused to become complicit in Obama’s video lie, but my guess is that she would have been better off if she had taken the principled stand. But I do agree with you that Hillary’s failure to ensure that the consulate was adequately secured must have been a factor in her calculations about how to respond to Obama.

AZCoyote on June 24, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Sigh…….the sad thing is….none of this will matter. Not her hopelessly inept run at the state department, not her useless stint as a US senator, not her annoying laugh, not her lies, malfeasance or gross incompetence.

Sadly, all that will matter to anyone is that Hillary will be the first female nominee to be President. And that will be all it will take to win. And as we have discovered with Barack Obama, it’s also the fix-all for every misdeed, lie, scandal, and example of gross incompetence.

johnnymozart on June 24, 2014 at 6:31 PM

Remember Hillary!‘s first race for the Senate in New York.

She got into the race late, and spent the first few months touring New York in a “Listening Tour”, the central feature of which was that she said absolutely nothing. They would trot her out to sit in a chair and she would sit there and nod as people came to a microphone to say what they were thinking. As it turns out, people at these events were mostly thinking about how wonderful Hillary! was, and how excited they were that she was going to be their Senator.

With just a few weeks left in the campaign, she started to speak and campaign in a normal fashion. In those few weeks, her lead went from about 20 points to a dead heat. If the campaign had been a few days longer, she would have lost badly. The more people saw of her, the less they liked her.

Flash forward to 2008. As long as the campaigns were local affairs, in early primary states, Hillary! did OK. She would come into the state with a large lead, and bleed support slowly enough that she still had a small lead by the time the vote rolled around. But when people started to pay attention nationally, she didn’t get the automatic reset to her high approval rating every time she started campaigning in a new state. Her negatives started following her from state to state, and her approval dropped steadily. In the end, she was beaten by an unremarkable back-bencher. The myth that Obama had to be some kind of political genius to beat Hillary!, when it was inevitable that Hillary! would beat herself, is a delusion many suffer under to this day.

Haiku Guy on June 24, 2014 at 7:11 PM

In the two weeks of Hillary Clinton’s re-entry in pop and political culture with her book tour, she has demonstrated a remarkable inability to connect with people, to communicate effectively, and to even comprehend the damage she’s doing to herself. Any other politician with this kind of fortnight would find it fortunate to be called a mediocrity.

To recycle a comment I made previously:

Bill Clinton: I feel your pain

Hillary Clinton: What difference, at this point, does it make?

Hillary Clinton will never be president.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 24, 2014 at 7:35 PM

… my guess is that she would have been better off if she had taken the principled stand.

AZCoyote on June 24, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Time will tell. What is clear, though, is that Hillary acted completely within character: principle (read, the truth) may be theoretically acceptable, so long as it doesn’t impair expediency. From Watergate corruption to Whitewater to levitating law firm records to futures trading to bimbo enablement to fabricated hostile gunfire to Benghazi fables to her health, the woman has left a trail of mendacity that any non-idealogue should regard as pathology.

Barnestormer on June 24, 2014 at 7:56 PM

I cannot voice my true feelings about Hillary because this is a family forum.

307wolverine on June 24, 2014 at 8:26 PM

If Republicans find a smart, principled, witty candidate who is able to speak extemporaneously, Hillary is toast.

Marcus Traianus on June 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Given the past several election cycles, maybe the Republicans should talk with MLB and get some hints on instituting a “designated talker” for their candidates.

in_awe on June 24, 2014 at 11:18 PM

And so she undercuts her legitimately impressive career with false modesty about the very quality that one can quantify: wealth.

“Legitmately impressive career”?! By recent Democratic candidates for president? Yes. By what average voters expect of presidential candidates? Not even close!

A “reset” with Russia turned into cold-war style aggression. An utter lack of competence at the State Dept led to the deaths of four Americans.

I think the Democrats (and to a lesser extent, the GOP) have overplayed their hand. Both parties expected voters to just sit around eating junk food and watching reality TV. Well, when you don’t have a job, it’s hard to afford cable TV and buy groceries.

Maybe not in 2014, but likely in 2016, we’ll be at the point where voters will vote for anybody but the incumbent. Cantor’s defeat was just the tip of the iceberg.

Some incumbent somewhere will end up losing to a ham sandwich.

conservablogger on June 25, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 2