Hillary on huge speaking fees: “That’s what they offered”

posted at 8:41 am on February 4, 2016 by Jazz Shaw

By way of a disclaimer, I didn’t watch the Democrats’ town hall last night. (I’ve been sick since Tuesday, sorry.) It doesn’t sound like I missed much in terms of breaking news, new policy announcements or serious fumbles. In fact, the “biggest” moment of the night appears to have come from Hillary Clinton when Anderson Cooper took a swing at her out of left field, asking her why she had to accept all those huge speaking fees for the past several years. (Politico)

Hillary Clinton gave no ground to Bernie Sanders over her progressive credentials at a televised forum Wednesday night, but the most notable moment came when Clinton was forced to answer a question about her Wall Street ties from moderator Anderson Cooper.

The night featured few fireworks, but Clinton found herself on the defensive when presented with one of Sanders’ key talking points: that she shouldn’t have taken high amounts of speaking fees from Goldman Sachs.

“Well, I don’t know. That’s what they offered,” she said when asked whether she needed to be paid for three speeches amounting to $675,000, which Sanders often points to as evidence that she is beholden to Wall Street. “Every secretary of state that I know has done that.”

Let’s go to the video.

For my money, Clinton’s answer really wasn’t the story here nearly as much as the reaction from the liberal community and the media. (But I repeat myself.) Here are just a few examples:

What we’re seeing here is one of the downfalls of Democrats and of socialism in general. The fact that Clinton was paid $675K for three speeches she gave to some investment bankers was actually shoved in her face as an accusation. And liberals around the country were worried that she couldn’t sufficiently defend herself from this attack.

The only weak part of Clinton’s answer was her tone. She actually managed to sound somewhat apologetic while absolutely not apologizing. She got tripped up a bit when Cooper got her to almost admit that she might not have done it if she’d known she was going to run for president, leading her into a completely fake answer where she was forced to pretend that she hasn’t been planning to be president since Bill left office. But her initial answer was actually pretty solid. That’s what they offered.

I would have had a fair bit more respect for Secretary Clinton if she had just taken that ball and run with it. If she was someone who honestly believed in capitalism and the American Dream, there would be no need for even a hint of an apology. Given the chance to script her answer for her I would have come up with something like this:

Yes, I took $675K in speaking fees. If I’d been able to negotiate for a million I’d have taken that. Through hard work and a little luck I’ve managed to be fairly successful in life and that provides me with the opportunity to take engagements such as those. I’ve earned it and I want everyone else in the country to succeed and grow their wealth as well. Nobody in this country should have to apologize for legally succeeding and living the American Dream.

Of course she didn’t say all of that because that’s not what her base wants to hear. They want to know how she will tax the successful and drag them down to their level. They need to be told that wealthy people are evil and that they will be punished under the next administration. Sanders is dishing out that red meat in large portions so I suppose Hillary is feeling the pressure not get too crazy with the capitalism talk. This is the Year of the Socialist on the left, and having the smell of money about you could be a death knell at the voting booth.

HillaryShrugs


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Wow, Hillary got attacked from the left and faltered.

fossten on February 4, 2016 at 8:44 AM

Hillary on huge speaking fees: “That’s what they offered”

It was an offer they couldn’t refuse

Rogue on February 4, 2016 at 8:44 AM

It’s always been about $ and power with Cankles. Always. Decades of evidence.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on February 4, 2016 at 8:46 AM

So once again Hillary lies. She lies even when she doesn’t have to. She lies when the truth would serve her just as well. She really is clinically insane. Pathological lying is a treatable mental illness.

Johnnyreb on February 4, 2016 at 8:46 AM

“Well, I don’t know”…

…she says that a lot lately!

JugEarsButtHurt on February 4, 2016 at 8:46 AM

Hillary on huge speaking fees: “That’s what they offered”

Isn’t that so dishonest? It’s right up there with “I turned $1,000 into $100,000 on cattle futures by reading the Wall Street Journal”. On the surface, it’s not a lie, or contradictory, but it belies the real meat of the process, of what really went on.

I’d guess more likely that since she wields enormous power then people pay her enormous amounts of money to have access to that power. Something along those lines!

LashRambo on February 4, 2016 at 8:49 AM

Hillary will NEVER as much money as Trump……

…..but she might get the prize if he keeps this up…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3428203/Donald-Trump-goes-radio-silent-Marco-Rubio-starts-attacking-calculating-Ted-Cruz.html

Donald Trump turns on Ted Cruz after being beaten in Iowa comparing victory speech to Howard Dean’s notorious scream – after trolling voters for not giving him credit and slamming the media

Donald Trump spent today doling out blame on Twitter for his Iowa loss and making fun of winner Ted Cruz.

‘Anybody who watched all of Ted Cruz’s far too long, rambling, overly flamboyant speech last nite would say that was his Howard Dean moment!’ Trump tweeted mocking the Texas senator’s 32-minute address, comparing it to the shriek the Democratic candidate bellowed out in 2004, which punctuated the end of his campaign.

Trump also pointed fingers at voters and the media, chiding the latter for not considering his second place finish behind Cruz a big win.

‘I don’t believe I have been given any credit by the voters for self-funding my campaign, the only one. I will keep doing, but not worth it!’ Trump tweeted.

‘The media has not covered my long-shot great finish in Iowa fairly. Brought in record voters and got second highest vote total in history!’ Trump also wrote.

PappyD61 on February 4, 2016 at 8:51 AM

That answer was just more Clinton BS. She ran in ’08 and knew she didn’t have a chance against Oblameo in ’12, she knew the next time she could run would be ’16. She didn’t just take the speaking fees because it was what they offered, she took the money because she’s a money grubbing liar.

Kissmygrits on February 4, 2016 at 8:51 AM

What’s a gal to do??

Gulp!

Sherman1864 on February 4, 2016 at 8:51 AM

If they offered $600k that means they’d probably pay $1MM.

So Dems want another great not-negotiator in the White House?

Lance Corvette on February 4, 2016 at 8:52 AM

I hate it when I get mugged on the street and the mugger insists I take a hundred grand. Gosh, it’s not like Hillary could have not given the speech to begin with, or taken a modest amount with the rest going to a worthy charity.

rbj on February 4, 2016 at 8:52 AM

Her brain must spin in her cranium 24/7, with her saying one thing out loud and always doing the opposite. What a confused world she lives in and the general public doesn’t see this dicotomy? Just WOW!

NCMike on February 4, 2016 at 8:55 AM

She turned down a offer from a university to speak because they couldn’t meet the high fee she demanded. That’s how much she cares about high tuitions.

plutorocks on February 4, 2016 at 8:56 AM

Are we to believe that Hillary didn’t have a standing amount for speaking fees, that interested parties would make an offer and she would say “OK”? Horrible negotiating skills if that’s the case. But we know it isn’t, it’s just another of her outlandish lies. She’s the knight in shining armor for the poor folks, who happens to be filthy rich from all the dirty money she’s acquired. She is the definition of a phony and a pathological liar.

fogw on February 4, 2016 at 9:02 AM

Even when she tries to play it off that she’s stupid, she appears to be even more stupid. “Stupid is as stupid does.” – Forest Gump

Cherokee on February 4, 2016 at 9:04 AM

…and then there’s the quarter million taken from a college now and then for speaking. I’m sure we’ll hear no complaints from her supporters about needed funding for higher education.

Ricard on February 4, 2016 at 9:06 AM

Okay c’mon, of all the bad things Hillary has done, this ain’t one of them.

Only a fool would turn down those kind of bucks.

cozmo on February 4, 2016 at 9:10 AM

Has there been a more corrupt politician since Boss Tweed?

ConstantineXI on February 4, 2016 at 9:11 AM

It’s always been about $ and power with Cankles. Always. Decades of evidence.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on February 4, 2016 at 8:46 AM

Decades of decadence. Just a slight addition. Hope you don’t mind.

vnvet on February 4, 2016 at 9:12 AM

So once again Hillary lies. She lies even when she doesn’t have to. She lies when the truth would serve her just as well. She really is clinically insane. Pathological lying is a treatable mental illness.

Johnnyreb on February 4, 2016 at 8:46 AM

I’ve known people like that. Who become so accustomed to lying they do so naturally, even in the most ridiculous circumstances. Including as you say, when telling the truth would have worked just the same.

ConstantineXI on February 4, 2016 at 9:13 AM

So when will a “reporter” go back to the source and ask those groups HOW the speaking fee was determined?

I’m betting “it was what she demanded”.

GarandFan on February 4, 2016 at 9:15 AM

Okay c’mon, of all the bad things Hillary has done, this ain’t one of them.

Only a fool would turn down those kind of bucks.

cozmo on February 4, 2016 at 9:10 AM

Isn’t this the same mentality that says if you could cheat on your wife with a beautiful babe, or pull off some large insurance fraud, or otherwise somehow rip off a big company, all without getting caught, and so no one gets hurt, you’ll do it? Doesn’t show much integrity.

LashRambo on February 4, 2016 at 9:15 AM

“That’s what they offered”

This smells like a lie from a million miles away. She doesn’t even think before she lies.

NotCoach on February 4, 2016 at 9:17 AM

Another lie. But that’s standard Clinton.

She could have said “No, no, no…that’s way too much. How about $X…just to cover my expenses…”

Integrity is a foreign concept to Clinton and Liberals/Progressives/Fascists in general.

“Alinsky for thee, but not for me” — Any Progressive.

ProfShadow on February 4, 2016 at 9:18 AM

Influence comes at a high price.

Basilsbest on February 4, 2016 at 9:18 AM

LashRambo on February 4, 2016 at 9:15 AM

Not illegal. If dems have no problem with her cashing in then so be it.

It is more analogous to Romney or Trump keeping their profits.

cozmo on February 4, 2016 at 9:18 AM

So when will a “reporter” go back to the source and ask those groups HOW the speaking fee was determined?

I’m betting “it was what she demanded”.

GarandFan on February 4, 2016 at 9:15 AM

Doesn’t matter. All you need to do to get by is keep ahead of your last lie, or in Trump’s case, his last outrageous comment. Maybe that’s why Trump and the Clintons are so close. They understand each other. Just keep moving ahead.

LashRambo on February 4, 2016 at 9:18 AM

Not illegal.

cozmo on February 4, 2016 at 9:18 AM

It’s not illegal. It’s unseemly, otherwise Hillary wouldn’t be lying about it.

LashRambo on February 4, 2016 at 9:20 AM

Christ almighty Jazz, you are just fracking dumb. The reason this matters is because the left no longer wants politicians who are owned by the financial sector. We believe that capitalists expend their resources for a reason. Don’t you? So when they expend their resources on a political candidate, they are doing so for a reason. They *expect* to gain access and influence, and more often than not, that’s what happens. That’s why they continually make investments in political campaigns. Or maybe, you think they just give out of the goodness of their heart?

libfreeordie on February 4, 2016 at 9:20 AM

Yes, I took $675K in speaking fees. If I’d been able to negotiate for a million I’d have taken that. Through hard work and a little luck…..

Doesn’t really matter if the below would not happen even in some remote parallel universe, but here is the appropriate FIFY quote…

Of course, yes, I took $675K in speaking fees. Through rancid, quasi-legal deceit, hypocrisy and every dirty means at my disposal, I’ve managed to be skate to success in life. Even my former boss said I had what it takes to do this. He said I was an unethical, dishonest lawyer, and that I conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality. I GOT AWAY WITH THIS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. I AM A SUCCESSFUL DEMOCRAT. THEREFORE, WHAT DIFFERENCE, AT THIS POINT, DOES ANYTHNG ELSE MAKE?

The last upper case in Classic Killary screech tone…

RL on February 4, 2016 at 9:21 AM

This smells like a lie from a million miles away. She doesn’t even think before she lies.

NotCoach on February 4, 2016 at 9:17 AM

This is why she sinks like an anvil dropped in the ocean when it gets to the campaign: She’s horrible at it compared to Bill who was one of the best at it.

ConstantineXI on February 4, 2016 at 9:21 AM

It’s not illegal. It’s unseemly, otherwise Hillary wouldn’t be lying about it.

LashRambo on February 4, 2016 at 9:20 AM

Of course its unseemly. And democrats are all good with that.

cozmo on February 4, 2016 at 9:23 AM

Why do you think powerful, rich corporations hand you small fortunes to give speeches, Hillary?

It’s not because you are a great speaker.

It’s to buy you off.

ConstantineXI on February 4, 2016 at 9:26 AM

Okay c’mon, of all the bad things Hillary has done, this ain’t one of them.

Only a fool would turn down those kind of bucks.

cozmo on February 4, 2016 at 9:10 AM

Of course this is one of Hillary’s misdeeds.

Given the history of Clinton machinations there’s every reason to conclude that value in the free market had nothing to do with Hillary’s exorbitant fees.

When you see Hillary is getting far more than the value she’s giving you know damned good and well what’s involved is the Clinton standard operating procedure of money laundering, illegal influence peddling, and outright payoff corruption.

Younggod on February 4, 2016 at 9:30 AM

Christ almighty Jazz, you are just fracking dumb. The reason this matters is because the left no longer wants politicians who are owned by the financial sector.

libfreeordie on February 4, 2016 at 9:20 AM

Glad to hear you’re a Trump supporter.

Younggod on February 4, 2016 at 9:31 AM

Younggod on February 4, 2016 at 9:30 AM

Well duh!

They have done it since her venture in to the cattle business and their real estate investments. This ain’t new. Its the democrat way.

cozmo on February 4, 2016 at 9:33 AM

libfreeordie on February 4, 2016 at 9:20 AM

I pretty much agree with that.

And of course we all know why business cozies up to the politicians.

Zomcon JEM on February 4, 2016 at 9:33 AM

Okay c’mon, of all the bad things Hillary has done, this ain’t one of them.

Only a fool would turn down those kind of bucks.

cozmo on February 4, 2016 at 9:10 AM

It’s not the speaking fees, but what will turn out to be a blatant lie about who set the pricing for the fees.

NotCoach on February 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM

NotCoach on February 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM

Think about this:

Democrats
Don’t
Care

Never have, never will.

People who do care, won’t vote for her. Therefore, they ain’t good democrats.

cozmo on February 4, 2016 at 9:41 AM

Well duh!

cozmo on February 4, 2016 at 9:33 AM

Hey, how could I know you were being sarcastic? I took you literally because I’ve heard you say goofier things in all seriousness.

Younggod on February 4, 2016 at 9:42 AM

Republicans wrecked what we did in the 90’s

Republicans held majority control (2+ out of 3) of the House, Senate, and White House 1/3/1995 – 1/3/2007.

Democrats held majority control from 1/3/2007 – 1/3/2015.

Bill Clinton gets too much credit for what GOP Congress did his last 6 years.

George W. Bush gets too much blame for what DEM Congress did last 2 years.

Check out this comparison of Employment-Population Ratio under GOP vs. DEM majorities, 1995-present

Tell me… who wrecked what who did in the 90’s?

ITguy on February 4, 2016 at 9:44 AM

“That’s what they offered”

Bernie got a golden ticket out of this one. Thanks Anderson!

It shows just how deaf Blue is to this issue. Her critics don’t care about the dollar amount but her focus is on THAT and not the real gist of the question.

Happy Nomad on February 4, 2016 at 9:45 AM

Good for her for being able to command that sort of money.

But what I want to know, is what she’s offered them in return. Nobody is shelling out $675k just to hear Cankles speak. Nobody.

Hill60 on February 4, 2016 at 9:47 AM

Glad to hear you’re a Trump supporter.

Younggod on February 4, 2016 at 9:31 AM

Wait. You think Trump isn’t in cahoots with the financial sector? Those are his friends and allies. He doesn’t need their money, that doesn’t mean he won’t serve their interests. You Trump supporters are a hoot. You oppose influence peddling in politics, but are ideoligcally supportive of it by supporting conservatives.

libfreeordie on February 4, 2016 at 9:48 AM

Hey, how could I know you were being sarcastic?
Younggod on February 4, 2016 at 9:42 AM

You didn’t know because you are young and inexperienced.

You often times post things without thinking and pick fights over subjects you know little about.

Most young full of themselves wanna’be gods are this way.

Those of y’all willing to learn go on to become old farts semi-demigods with short catchy names.

cozmo on February 4, 2016 at 9:49 AM

Christ almighty Jazz, you are just fracking dumb….

libfreeordie on February 4, 2016 at 9:20 AM

Ah, yes, the quintessentially moronic, smug first recourse response letting everyone know how “smart” [and “clairvoyant”] you are, the mind reader and diviner without peer….

Which ludicrous “assertion”, of course, means that whatever you say must be taken as okey-dokey, being that everyone else has been prima facie declared “fracking dumb” by a master of the invented imbecilic idiomatic expression. No references, just self-congratulatory blather denigrating all while signifying nothing.

“Fracking” would be a good place for you – starting around -7500 feet.

RL on February 4, 2016 at 9:54 AM

Hey c’mon, she gave the fees to her favorite charity.

Sven on February 4, 2016 at 10:03 AM

Christ almighty Jazz, you are just fracking dumb….

libfreeordie on February 4, 2016 at 9:20 AM

Kinda early for ad hominems, isn’t it?

The reason this matters is because the left no longer wants politicians who are owned by the financial sector.

libfreeordie on February 4, 2016 at 9:20 AM

Why did you vote for O’bama, then? He took a truckload of donations in both 2008 and 2012 from many financial sector employees.

O’bama also took many donations in 2008 and 2012 from many employees, including a Senior Vice President, of…..HALLIBURTON.

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2016 at 10:03 AM

Bribes are so easy to take.

albill on February 4, 2016 at 10:05 AM

How much did they offer for her to not speak?

James on February 4, 2016 at 10:07 AM

You didn’t know because you are young and inexperienced.

You often times post things without thinking and pick fights over subjects you know little about.

Most young full of themselves wanna’be gods are this way.

Those of y’all willing to learn go on to become old farts semi-demigods with short catchy names.

cozmo on February 4, 2016 at 9:49 AM

I’m a pilot from Vietnam and Gulf I.

You’re proving my post.

Younggod on February 4, 2016 at 10:08 AM

money grubbing liar.

Kissmygrits on February 4, 2016 at 8:51 AM

You spelled “wh0re wrong.

Lord Whorfin on February 4, 2016 at 10:08 AM

Jazz, you are just fracking dumb. The reason this matters is because the left no longer wants politicians who are owned by the financial sector. We believe that capitalists expend their resources for a reason. Don’t you? So when they expend their resources on a political candidate, they are doing so for a reason. They *expect* to gain access and influence, and more often than not, that’s what happens. That’s why they continually make investments in political campaigns. Or maybe, you think they just give out of the goodness of their heart?

libfreeordie on February 4, 2016 at 9:20 AM

You can pontificate all you want, but the behavior of the left indicates no such thing. The reality is the left is just as greedy for money and power as any CEO you care to name. It particularly loves the ‘protection money’ it can extract from the financial sector, or anywhere else. Just ask Microsoft.

Ricard on February 4, 2016 at 10:18 AM

Younggod on February 4, 2016 at 10:08 AM

Yes dear.

cozmo on February 4, 2016 at 10:19 AM

Yes dear.

cozmo on February 4, 2016 at 10:19 AM

after the search you’re feeling kind of stupid huh

Younggod on February 4, 2016 at 10:22 AM

“Because THAT’S. THE . PRICE. of American diplomacy Anderson.

THAT’S. THE . PRICE.

Now go fetch me some water, boy.”

#HonestHillary

Arnold Yabenson on February 4, 2016 at 10:22 AM

Younggod on February 4, 2016 at 10:22 AM

Um, no.

Do you ever feel stupid for some of the ignorant things you claim?

cozmo on February 4, 2016 at 10:37 AM

Of course, yes, I took $675K in speaking fees. Through rancid, quasi-legal deceit, hypocrisy and every dirty means at my disposal, I’ve managed to be skate to success in life. Even my former boss said I had what it takes to do this. He said I was an unethical, dishonest lawyer, and that I conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality. I GOT AWAY WITH THIS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. I AM A SUCCESSFUL DEMOCRAT. THEREFORE, WHAT DIFFERENCE, AT THIS POINT, DOES ANYTHNG ELSE MAKE?
The last upper case in Classic Killary screech tone…

RL on February 4, 2016 at 9:21 AM

Excellent!

maryo on February 4, 2016 at 10:42 AM

Follow up question:

“Why do you think you’re worth and paid such huge speaking fees?”

We know the answer, ‘Legal’ bribes, for influence, but I wonder what she’d say?

LouisianaLightning on February 4, 2016 at 10:43 AM

money grubbing liar.

Kissmygrits on February 4, 2016 at 8:51 AM
You spelled “wh0re wrong.

Lord Whorfin on February 4, 2016 at 10:08 AM

You made me spit my coffee onto my computer! Don’t worry, I wiped it clean with a cloth.

maryo on February 4, 2016 at 10:46 AM

Goldman Sachs is as American as apple pie, Jazz?

If high banking is the American dream to many conservatives then we are indeed incapable of righting the ship.

FrankT on February 4, 2016 at 10:48 AM

Strange that when I was in university and speakers were invited, we asked what their charges were so we could decide if it would be worth it. She is full of BS and lies as usual. Even today in my PhD program in Oriental Medicine we ask for their charges and believe me, they are far smarter than Hillary has or will ever be, and their charges were perhaps $3-5K for 2 days. Learned a lot from them and from her they learn only hate!

Roselle on February 4, 2016 at 10:48 AM

How much does Laura Bush get paid for speaking engagements?
With all of the plastic surgery provided to her free of charge at Walter Reid, Muggo Obma should command quite a sum when she goes on the circuit.

maryo on February 4, 2016 at 10:49 AM

If that’s what they offered then each side knew they were buying more than just a speech.

tommyboy on February 4, 2016 at 11:00 AM

She is in this for POWER and WEALTH. The Country and its citizens be damned

rjoco1 on February 4, 2016 at 11:13 AM

Goldman Sachs is as American as apple pie, Jazz?

If high banking is the American dream to many conservatives then we are indeed incapable of righting the ship.

FrankT on February 4, 2016 at 10:48 AM

I’m afraid there’s no saving this ship. It’s hit the “bread and circuses” iceberg and is doomed due to flawed design (no criminal penalties for violation of the Constitution by government actors).

It means people are going to have to die in order to make a better one…

ConstantineXI on February 4, 2016 at 11:46 AM

I hate it when I get mugged on the street and the mugger insists I take a hundred grand. Gosh, it’s not like Hillary could have not given the speech to begin with, or taken a modest amount with the rest going to a worthy charity.

rbj on February 4, 2016 at 8:52 AM

“… or taken a modest amount with the rest going to a worthy charity.” — Like a donation to the Clinton Crime Syndicate”

Dasher on February 4, 2016 at 11:46 AM

“Well, I don’t know. That’s what they offered,” she said when asked whether she needed to be paid for three speeches amounting to $675,000, which Sanders often points to as evidence that she is beholden to Wall Street. “Every secretary of state that I know has done that.”

Really, Hillary? How much did Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell or even Madeleine Albright get paid for speeches? Hillary Clinton is the first Secretary of State to parlay the power into huge personal wealth. What did Goldman Sachs and all the 7-figure donors to the Clinton Foundation get for their “generosity”? If Hillary became President, our enemies could buy treason of our country.

Hillary Clinton is America’s Imelda Marcos or Eva Peron. She MUST be stopped before November.

Steve Z on February 4, 2016 at 12:05 PM

An interesting take on this from a Power Line commenter. Would one of our resident Hillario! Cultists care to respond to his question?

Can you imagine listening to her for three hours, much less paying to do so?

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2016 at 12:16 PM

An interesting take on this from a Power Line commenter. Would one of our resident Hillario! Cultists care to respond to his question?

Can you imagine listening to her for three hours, much less paying to do so?

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2016 at 12:16 PM

Without extracting my own intestines with a fork?

ConstantineXI on February 4, 2016 at 12:45 PM

(A) “That’s what they offered.”
(B) Leonard explaining to Penny why he had sex with a visiting professor he had just met: “I have a good reason…She let me.”

Hucklebuck on February 4, 2016 at 12:50 PM

Wouldn’t outrageous speaking fees be such a great place to launder money? Just thinking out loud.

hal_mccombs on February 4, 2016 at 1:00 PM

Can you imagine listening to her for three hours, much less paying to do so?

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2016 at 12:16 PM

Not without hallucinogens, no. But I can quite easily imagine gnawing off my own leg to avoid listening to her.

GrumpyOldFart on February 4, 2016 at 1:34 PM

An interesting take on this from a Power Line commenter. Would one of our resident Hillario! Cultists care to respond to his question?

Can you imagine listening to her for three hours, much less paying to do so?

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2016 at 12:16 PM

Well, keep in mind that the Hillary audiences have much in common with this audience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I

Ricard on February 4, 2016 at 1:40 PM

Can you imagine listening to her for three hours, much less paying to do so?

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2016 at 12:16 PM

Well, keep in mind that the Hillary audiences have much in common with this audience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I

Ricard on February 4, 2016 at 1:40 PM

I was thinking more along the line of these Monty Hall Cultists on “Let’s Make a Deal”

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2016 at 1:49 PM

Paula Jones and every other victim of BILL Clintons who took the money
It’s what Hillary offered.

IXXINY on February 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM

It was an offer they couldn’t refuse

Rogue on February 4, 2016 at 8:44 AM

Like the scene in Godfather Part II, where the up-and-coming Vito Corleone is visited by the crooked landlord about some old lady’s rent. The landlord (having found out who he’s offended) apologizes and says “The rent stays like-a before!” Vito just stares at him. “I’ll…I’ll even lower it!” Vito just stares at him. “Five dollars!” Vito stares. Now the guy is really squirming. “Ten dollars!” Finally, Vito nods his approval and they shake on it.

CurtZHP on February 4, 2016 at 2:00 PM

That’s what they offered.

BS. That’s the price Clinton and her acolytes demand for Clinton to speak. Are people really that stupid to think she doesn’t set the price? If all GS offered was $1, would she have done that speech cause that’s all they offered?

TulsAmerican on February 4, 2016 at 3:03 PM

It’s 2000 all over again. The major Iowa newspaper that endorsed Hillario! just last week is now calling for…

Des Moines Register calls for audit of Sanders-Clinton result in Iowa

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2016 at 3:51 PM

Sharp-eyed reader on another forum found an interesting story from CBS News, which last time I checked wasn’t Faux News. CBS also cites the Washington Post, which last time I checked wasn’t Faux News either.

Behind the scenes of Hillary Clinton’s $300,000 speech at UCLA

The Money Quote is in the final paragraph…

A team at the Harry Walker Agency, a speaker’s bureau handling Clinton’s appearance, requested snacks in the green room (“diet ginger ale, crudité, hummus, and sliced fruit,” they wrote in an email obtained by the Washington Post.) They described her preferred onstage refreshments (water, both hot and room temperature, and lemon wedges). They specified the type of chair Clinton should be sitting in during part of her appearance, and the type of pillows to be placed on that chair (long and rectangular, with an additional pillow backstage for added support, if needed.) They even requested that a medal being presented to Clinton be given in a box instead of being draped around her neck.

And of course, there was the matter of Clinton’s $300,000 speaking fee. When officials asked for a price reduction on behalf of the public university, Clinton’s representatives didn’t budge, saying $300,000 was already the “special university rate.”

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2016 at 4:43 PM

Really, Hillary? How much did Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell or even Madeleine Albright get paid for speeches?
Steve Z on February 4, 2016 at 12:05 PM

I’m sure the fact-checkers will get right on that.

An interesting take on this from a Power Line commenter. Would one of our resident Hillario! Cultists care to respond to his question?

Can you imagine listening to her for three hours, much less paying to do so?

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2016 at 12:16 PM

This is how easy it is to demolish Hillary’s position, which no newser is ever going to do.

Good for her for being able to command that sort of money.

But what I want to know, is what she’s offered them in return. Nobody is shelling out $675k just to hear Cankles speak. Nobody.

Hill60 on February 4, 2016 at 9:47 AM

So once again Hillary lies. She lies even when she doesn’t have to. She lies when the truth would serve her just as well. She really is clinically insane. Pathological lying is a treatable mental illness.

Johnnyreb on February 4, 2016 at 8:46 AM

I’ve known people like that. Who become so accustomed to lying they do so naturally, even in the most ridiculous circumstances. Including as you say, when telling the truth would have worked just the same.

ConstantineXI on February 4, 2016 at 9:13 AM

Her brain must spin in her cranium 24/7, with her saying one thing out loud and always doing the opposite. What a confused world she lives in and the general public doesn’t see this dicotomy? Just WOW!

NCMike on February 4, 2016 at 8:55 AM

She turned down a offer from a university to speak because they couldn’t meet the high fee she demanded. That’s how much she cares about high tuitions.

plutorocks on February 4, 2016 at 8:56 AM

I hate it when I get mugged on the street and the mugger insists I take a hundred grand. Gosh, it’s not like Hillary could have not given the speech to begin with, or taken a modest amount with the rest going to a worthy charity.

rbj on February 4, 2016 at 8:52 AM

AesopFan on February 4, 2016 at 11:30 PM

Jazz, you are just fracking dumb. The reason this matters is because the left no longer wants politicians who are owned by the financial sector. We believe that capitalists expend their resources for a reason. Don’t you? So when they expend their resources on a political candidate, they are doing so for a reason. They *expect* to gain access and influence, and more often than not, that’s what happens. That’s why they continually make investments in political campaigns. Or maybe, you think they just give out of the goodness of their heart?

libfreeordie on February 4, 2016 at 9:20 AM

You can pontificate all you want, but the behavior of the left indicates no such thing. The reality is the left is just as greedy for money and power as any CEO you care to name. It particularly loves the ‘protection money’ it can extract from the financial sector, or anywhere else. Just ask Microsoft.

Ricard on February 4, 2016 at 10:18 AM

Except for the part about the desires of the left, lib is totally correct. However, the rank-and-file likes to THINK they can find politicians who are not owned by the financial sector (the just-very-rich Dems are, supposedly, not owned in the same way the finance-execs are, somehow…).
Therefore, pointing out that their own candidates are owned by the financial sector is not out of line or hypocritical at all.

AesopFan on February 4, 2016 at 11:34 PM

Wait. You think Trump isn’t in cahoots with the financial sector? Those are his friends and allies. He doesn’t need their money, that doesn’t mean he won’t serve their interests. You Trump supporters are a hoot. You oppose influence peddling in politics, but are ideoligcally supportive of it by supporting conservatives.

libfreeordie on February 4, 2016 at 9:48 AM

The bolded part is true.
The rest is slightly unintelligible.

AesopFan on February 4, 2016 at 11:36 PM

Republicans wrecked what we did in the 90’s

Republicans held majority control (2+ out of 3) of the House, Senate, and White House 1/3/1995 – 1/3/2007.

Democrats held majority control from 1/3/2007 – 1/3/2015.

Bill Clinton gets too much credit for what GOP Congress did his last 6 years.

George W. Bush gets too much blame for what DEM Congress did last 2 years.

Check out this comparison of Employment-Population Ratio under GOP vs. DEM majorities, 1995-present

Tell me… who wrecked what who did in the 90’s?

ITguy on February 4, 2016 at 9:44 AM

Great graph.
One picture is worth a thousand blog posts.

AesopFan on February 4, 2016 at 11:37 PM