Hillary Clinton Keeps Committing The Same Gaffe About Her Wealth
Hillary Clinton does not come across well when she tries to play the empathy card.
Just over a week ago, Hillary Clinton made news by describing the fact that she and her husband have earned millions of dollars in speaking fees and other income in the years since he left the White House with the comment that, at that point, they were “dead broke.” The fact that this also happened to be the time when the Clintons purchase multi-million dollars homes in New York and Washington, D.C. and Hillary began to earn an annual salary in excess of $170,000 per year as a Senator meant that her comments were subjected to much-deserved derision on both sides of the political aisle. Clinton seemed to recognize that she’d made a mistake, though, given the fact that she essentially retracted the statement just days later. Now, though, the former Secretary of State has again made odd comments about her wealth that are once again raising questions about whether or not Clinton is “out of touch” with the average American:
Republicans slammed Hillary Clinton on Sunday for an interview with the British newspaper The Guardian in which she said she and her husband pay full income taxes unlike “a lot of people who are truly well off,” and added that voters “don’t see me as part of the problem.” The interview came nearly two weeks after Clinton made unwanted headlines by telling ABC News’ Diane Sawyer that she and her husband were “dead broke” when they left the White House, when asked to defend her speaking fees of more than $200,000 a pop. Clinton was asked by The Guardian how she will convince voters that she’s not part of the problem at a moment when the issue of income inequality is gaining increased focus. “But they don’t see me as part of the problem,” she told the paper, adding, “because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work.” Clinton aides did not immediately respond to an email for comment. But Republicans quickly seized on the interview. The Republican research group America Rising blasted out a story about The Guardian quotes, with the subject line: “What?” “If Hillary is going to run for President she might be advised to take a lengthy sabbatical from her $200k per pop speaking tour and private shopping sprees at Bergdorfs to try and reconnect with what’s happening back here on Earth,” America Rising spokesman Tim Miller wrote in the email. Adrienne Elrod, spokeswoman for the pro-Clinton group Correct the Record, pushed back on Miller. “Secretary Clinton’s point is about paying your fair share in taxes, unlike leading Republicans who try to evade tax responsibilities using offshore loopholes,” she said. “Mr. Miller has selective memory if he doesn’t recall reports that Mitt Romney reportedly maintained more than $30 million in the Cayman Islands.” Clinton, a day after the “dead broke” comment, clarified it, reflecting her awareness that it was a needless gaffe. Several people close to Clinton said it came from a place of anger over the hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal bills the couple had faced over Republican investigations into issues like Whitewater and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. They needed help from longtime friend Terry McAuliffe securing the home they bought in Chappaqua when she first ran for the U.S. Senate from New York.
It’s not surprising that Republicans are jumping all over Clinton’s comments, of course. For some time now, it has been apparent that the powers-that-be on the right are engaging in a conscious effort to undermine Clinton’s presumed 2016 campaign before it even starts. It has included everything from Karl Rove questioning Clinton’s health to a new RNC ad that exploited Clinton’s earlier remarks about ‘debt.” Whether they admit it publicly or not, it is obvious that Republicans see Clinton as being as much of a threat in 2016 as she appeared to be in 2008, and this campaign on the right is similar to the one that played out in 2006 and 2007. Additionally, given how the 2008 Democratic Primary played out, it seems apparent that there are some on the right who are hoping that they can generate a little intra-party spat among Democrats that would derail even only to a small degree Hillary’s campaign. Added into that fact, Republican comments about issues like this tend to come across as hypocritical given their own party’s tendency to nominate rich white men for President, and the influence that men like Sheldon Adelson, Ken Langone, and the Koch Brothers have on politics in the GOP.
As it turns out, though, it isn’t just Republicans who are expressing some concern about the manner in which Clinton is coming across:
Some influential Democrats — including former advisers to President Obama — said in interviews last week they fear that Clinton’s personal wealth and rarefied, cloistered lifestyle could jeopardize the Democratic Party’s historic edge with the middle class that powered Obama’s wins. “I don’t know whether it’s just that she’s been ‘Madam Secretary’ for so long, but she’s generating an imperial image,” said Dick Harpootlian, who recently stepped down as Democratic Party chairman in South Carolina, which hosts an early presidential primary. Harpootlian, who backed Obama over Clinton in 2008 and is a longtime ally of Vice President Biden, added: “She’s been living 30, going on 40 years with somebody bringing your coffee to you every morning. Is it more ‘Downton Abbey‘ than it is America?” Multiple Obama campaign advisers — who spoke only on the condition of anonymity to avoid alienating the Clintons — said they fear Clinton’s financial status could hurt her as it did Republican nominee Mitt Romney, whom Obama portrayed in 2012 as an out-of-touch plutocrat at a time of economic uncertainty. “It’s going to be a massive issue for her,” one Obama adviser said. “When you’re somebody like the secretary of state or president of the United States or first lady, you’re totally cut off [from normal activity], so your perception of the middle-class reality gets frozen in a time warp.” Asked what Democrats should do, the adviser said: “Panic.”
I’m not sure that panic is the appropriate emotion here. After all, as I noted above, Republicans are hardly in a position to play a populist card against Clinton with any degree of credibility, especially if they nominate someone like Jeb Bush to run against her. At the same time, though, comments like this highlight things about Clinton that could become issues heading into another President run.
Off the top, this is yet another example of the fact that Hillary Clinton is not nearly as skilled a politician or communicator as her husband. As more than one commentator has noted in the last couple weeks as the book tour has rolled out, Bill Clinton would never make mistakes like this, even on his worst day. Whatever the state of his own finances, President Clinton was always very good at putting forth an aura of empathy that at least made him seem like more of a “Regular Joe” than he was even when he ran for President the first time 1992. Hillary has never been able to do this. Granted, it’s kind of hard for someone who has been First Lady, a Senator, and now Secretary of State to come across as a being able to relate to the struggles of the average American, but Hillary seems to have a lot more in common with Mitt Romney’s detachment from those struggles than her husband’s empathy. Comments like this also play into the general idea, whether its fair or not, that Clinton does not come across as “warm” and empathetic. For a lot of reasons, this may not hurt Hillary electorally, but it’s still likely to be an issue going forward and one that the media is going to continue talking about, especially if the Democratic nomination fight ends up being more of a coronation.
Incidents like this also lay bare conflicts within the Democratic Party that are likely to lead to some kind of primary challenge to Clinton from the left. Progressives in the party have long been lamenting the ties that both Clintons have to Wall Street and the business community, their ability to raise huge amounts of money for candidates of their choosing, and what that means for the party in general. There’s also been criticism that Clinton herself has not paid sufficient attention to “progressive” issues such as income inequality and the minimum wage, which is one of the reasons that many pundits on that side of the aisle have expressed a desire for someone such as Elizabeth Warren or Brian Schweitzer to mount a challenge to Clinton that would, at the very least, force her to address these issues in ways that she probably doesn’t want to if the’s running the “play it safe” type of campaign that a front-runner normally would. Comments like this are only likely to make those desires for an alternative even stronger.
Politico’s Roger Simon gets it right this morning when he points out that Hillary needs to stop poor-mouthing:
Good for the Clintons. Neither was born into wealth; they both held low-paying jobs at one time; and they both moved up the ladder of success. That is the American dream. (As for having rich friends, well, we should all be so lucky.) But you can’t both be wealthy and poor-mouth. Not if you want to be president. When ABC’s Diane Sawyer recently questioned Hillary about the $5 million she had amassed by giving speeches and the $100 million Bill was now worth, Hillary nodded and said, “You have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt. We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education. It was not easy.” But “dead broke” people don’t have $350,000 in cash to secure one mortgage and $855,000 in cash to secure another. About 50 million Americans live below the poverty line, and 47 million need food stamps; they know what dead broke looks like, and it doesn’t look like the Clintons. PolitiFact.com rated Hillary’s dead-broke claim as “mostly false.” OK, big deal. Better to make your mistakes early than late. But you have to stop making them. On Saturday, The Guardian published an interview with Hillary Clinton in which she was asked how she will convince voters she is not part of America’s “glaring income inequality” problem given her “huge personal wealth.” “But they don’t see me as part of the problem,” Clinton said, “because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work.” She said that, according to The Guardian, with a “burst of laughter.” I don’t see what’s so funny. Hillary Clinton has a problem here. It is time for her to fess up and admit she is, indeed, “truly well off.” It is nothing to be ashamed of. Maybe she did it through the “dint of hard work” and maybe she did it because political celebrities get dollars thrown at them.
The American public is not likely to hold the fact that Hillary is “well off” against her. One need only look to the the political success that families such as Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Bush have had to see that wealth in and of itself, and even immense wealth, is generally not a reason that people will vote against you. Heck, a branch of the Rockefeller family managed to become politically successful in one of the poorest states in the nation. Even Mitt Romney doesn’t provide much evidence of an antipathy toward wealth on the part voters since it was Romney’s perceived lack of empathy that hurt him far more than the fact that he is worth several hundred million dollars. In the same sense, Clinton’s efforts to make a family fortune estimated at $100,000,000 seem like it makes her middle class, which isn’t helped when her daughter says that she just doesn’t care about money (which is easy to do when you get paid $600,000 per year by NBC to do basically nothing of substance) just don’t come across as credible and make her seem like a complete phony. Given the fact that she had similar problems in her 2008 run for the White House and she’s had six years to think about them one would have thought she would have learned from her mistakes.
That doesn’t constitute a gaffe.
If it does…then everything she says will be a gaffe because Republicans are going to jump on everything she says.
If you want to label it a gaffe…then tell me what she pays for taxes and lets evaluate it on the basis of facts. On the face of it…her and Bill are a lot more self-made than Romney or the Kochs or Rand Paul or Paul Ryan or most of the other Republican royalty.
Hillary is not a good campaigner, however I believe the nomination is hers for the taking, unless she performs terribly. If someone like Elizabeth Warren is good on the trail that might, MIGHT, be enough to pull Democrats away from Hillary Clinton, however that possibility is a long shot to be sure.
As for the wealth stuff? Compared to Mitt Romney and car elevators, and his sneering comments about the 47% parasite class, Hillary’s “gaffe” is as close to being irrelevant 24 months out from the conventions as you can get.
Clinton’s efforts to make a family fortune estimated at $100,000,000 seem like it makes her middle class, which isn’t helped when her daughter says that she just doesn’t care about money (which is easy to do when you get paid $600,000 per year by NBC to do basically nothing of substance) just don’t come across as credible and make her seem like a complete phony.
I’m going to stick up a little for Chelsea Clinton here. Her exact words were:
I took that as a reference to Chelsea’s brief career in the world of finance, working briefly for McKinsey & Company adn then Avenue Captial Group. She found she didn’t care about “money” as in the world of high finance.
And on a slighly related tangent, but one I think Doug will tolerate, as it ties in to one of his fixations: Hillary Clinton reportedly received an advance of $14 million for “Hard Choices,” and it’s tanking. On the other hand, Sarah Palin received an advance of $1.25 million for “Going Rogue,” and it sold a hell of a lot better than Clinton’s book. Clinton’s book sold 100,000 copies in its first week, then fell off the NYT list; Palin’s sold over a million in less than two weeks and stayed atop the NYT’s list for 6 weeks and spent 10 weeks in the top 10.
Given that, which publishing deal seems a better investment, and which seems more a political donation?
Hillary Clinton’s been around so long that she’s basically a celebrity or a brand-name. The idea that she’s cold is like saying her husband is really charismatic. It’s built into the product. By that I mean, you can believe it or not. It makes no difference at all in the larger scheme of the world. Had she not encountered Obama, a much more talented politician, and voted for Iraq, she would be president with the same knowledge about her that we have now.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Always invest in the mainstream conservative media. Honestly, conservatives buy the books of their right-wing politicians and pundit icons more than liberals buy the books of their politicians and icons. The only liberal politician I can think of whose books sold well were those of Barack Obama. As a personal example: my parents and many of my 8 brothers and sisters have copies of the books of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin and Ann Coulter in their homes. On the liberal side, me and my brother have none of the books of liberal politicians.
I have shares of a PIMCO Commodities Fund in my 401k, which is in the Caymans. Fear my shadowy wealth! OooooOOOooooOOOooo…
@al-Ameda: So, you’re saying that conservatives are, generally speaking, more literate than liberals?
I seem to recall Jon Stewart’s and Stephen Colbert’s books did moderately well.
I wish I could recall who said it, but one person sympathetically observed that the Clintons were so poor when they left the White House, they had to steal over $100K in stuff from the White House… most of which they gave back, presumably after the checks for the book advances cleared.
Why are we comparing sales of fiction to non-fiction?
@Jenos Idanian #13: ” So, you’re saying that conservatives are, generally speaking, more literate than liberals?”
Oh, yes, because reading “books” by notable “authors” like Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter is the very definition of literate.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Actually, I’m saying that they – conservatives – are more likely to indulge a need for confirming propaganda than are liberals.
Ultimately, all of these books – liberal and conservative – end up being “remaindered” out and may be purchased for less than a dollar at garage sales. They do not age well.
I’m not a huge White Noise fan, but there’s a pretty great line in the book where the Hitler Studies professor says that we would not have television without Hitler.
Likewise, I think it’s the case that Jenos would not exist without the Clintons.
@al-Ameda:
Palin bought a $hitload of those books (long on lipstick, short on pitbull) herself…and gave them away to donors…long before any were “remaindered” out.
@C. Clavin:
I believe my mother bought a discounted copy at Costco. I think it was the St James’ English language translation from the original Aramaic-Rogue.
Probably the only Republican that could defeat Hillary is: Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, South Dakota Sen. John Thune and a dark horse: New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte.
@al-Ameda: I picked up both of Obama’s books for about five bucks total. Oddly enough, neither was labeled as “fiction” or filed under “Ayers.”
@wr:
It’s important to remember too that Republicans need to be told what to think…a’la Fox News…so propaganda like Palin’s work of fiction is a useful training aid for the dupes.
@C. Clavin: Palin promised donors signed copies of the book, and bought them to fulfill the pledge.
And I’m sure no one ever bought any Democrats’ books in bulk…
She’s not doing herself any favors by trying to minimize her personal wealth, or dissociate herself from other wealthy. Most people assume all serious presidential contenders are well off, so its not a strike against her unless she’s seen as denying it.
If she moves on (just doesn’t discuss it, answering questions on it with the equivalent of “we worked hard and were lucky enough to do well financially”) it’ll die as an issue for the simple reason that everyone she’ll be running against also has millions.
Hey Princess 1/2 Term… Oath…Pledge…Promise…
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Apples and Orangutans.
If you have to mis-charachterize things in order to make your point….then you don’t have a point.
I really don’t know why we’re arguing about these dumb ghost-written fluffobiographies. They’re all dumb, left or right. Most of my friends and family are very well educated and well-read, and not a single one of them has ever admitted to reading one, on either side of the aisle.
As for the topic of the post: Hillary has always seemed to me to be the Romney of the left. She’s aloof, out-of-touch, and generally bland tasteless pulp.
Well, Sarah Palin is probably a better investment for a publisher, after all, she is a professional celebrity, not a politician. Paris Hilton and the Kardashian girls are reliable money makes too.
From what I can find the Clinton’s paid a 30% effective tax rate from 2001-2008 (I assume that she was no longer obligated to release tax returns after 2008). Remember that Romney bragged about paying 13%. I mean…even I pay 15%…and I’m only in the 97th percentile of income.
While Doug is being blinded by a bright shiny object that he thinks is a gaffe…the bigger story is that you are seeing a major plank in Clinton’s platform being nailed down. At least I hope so…I hope she is going to make an issue of the tax preferences that allow the richest amongst us to reduce their effective tax rates. This includes the 26 major corporations that pay 0% in taxes.
Unfortunately for Clinton the next Republican candidate probably isn’t going to be a Richey Rich character like Romney…but you can bet they are going to run on policies that will make inequality worse.
And that is a discussion worth having.
Or we can talk about gaffes…cause it ain’t my website.
The difference between HRC and Romney is that Romney actually accomplished something in life
@bandit: …sure? Go on, please, I want to hear more.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
I browsed them in the “Hawaii: Is it a State?” section
@bandit:
Yes…he was born rounding third and headed for home. His accomplishment? Not tripping on the silver spoon in his mouth.
@al-Ameda:
I lost track of the number of tourists who asked me “do you take American money?” and/or ”do you often visit the states?” when I worked in the tourist industry here. Those weren’t quite as stupid as ”is there water on the other side of the island?” or ”what’s the elevation here?*”, but they were close.
* said on a beach
Of course, Hillary’s comments about paying “ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off,” is rather hypocritical given Democrat tendencies to not even pay one’s taxes. Hello Secretary Geithner and Mr. Rangel! (Or is she going to propose a flat tax so that the Kennedy’s can’t hide money in the Cayman Islands?)
Personally I support Elizabeth Warren. Nothing screams “POPULIST” like a Native American with a net worth upwards of $14million.
@john: So once is a fluke, two is a tendency, three is a trend, and four is everybody, I guess?
@john:
So you think the net worth of Native Americans should be limited?
Good to know.
@john:
Good to know that Elizabeth has about 3% the net worth as Mitt Romney has.
Nothing screams “WHO CARES” as much as riffing on Elizabeth Warren’s various ethnic heritages.
2014 and there seems to be a steady drone on the news channels of Hillary. Her campaign managers had better watch the over exposure. Wouldn’t be the first time that voters tired of hearing about a candidate.
Apparently Jenos is taking this book thing seriously…
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-benghazi-chappaqua
I am pretty middle of the road and will likely vote for a Dem in 16 but Hillary comes across as about as caring as her handlers tell her to be. She can’t connect with the everyday folks b/c she has been disconnected from them for so long – doesn’t make her a bad person – just a fact of life – it was the same for GWB – GWB had the whole good ol boy / frat boy thing going for him – Romney came across as robotic – lets face it Hillary, by her own admission, hasn’t driven a car since the early 90s – hard for the avg Joe or Joette to connect with that – with that being said, it doesn’t mean she isn’t qualified for the job – but she shouldn’t try to come across as the avg American (if that is her intent) b/c, well, she isn’t one – and hasn’t been one in a really long time.
Stay classy Republicans, stay classy…
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2014/06/24/arkansas-gop-official-on-hillary-shed-probably-get-shot
There is one fact I have always been fascinated with – Bill Clinton’s 63% approval ratings as he was being impeached.
Here’s why – as everyone who reads this knows, Bill wasn’t too popular with white males, rating there was 42%.
Digression – ask any woman what they consider a man’s biggest betrayal and you will find screwing around/being unfaithful at the top of the chart.
Soooooo, if Bill was at 63% and male’s approval was under 50, that means WOMEN had to have had a 75 – 80% approval of him – even though he committed the one thing that most women detest the most – cheating on them.
And the reason this “faux paus” was overlooked by women?
Actually there were two. One, he screwed a fat chick – if it had been Morgan Fairchild or Eva Longoria – bye bye Bill, but he did a fat girl – the “everywomen” in effect, Most women could identify with the chubby plain looking non knock out Lewinsky.
And the other reason was Hillary. She was the cold beatch who forced her wonderful, kind, sensitive, successful man into the hands of the “other” woman. “If Bill was my husband, I would be loving him and giving him everything he wanted, but that Hillary is such a shrew, I don’t blame him for going outside for some lovin'”.
Hillary was Bill’s biggest get out of jail card. She tries to campaign like him, but its like getting Allen and Rossi instead of Martin and Lewis (maybe reference lost on baby boomers).
@the Q: I still remember the international reaction at the time (I was in Tokyo at the time):
The French: “He has a mistress? Et alors?”
South Americans: “He only has one mistress? What’s wrong with the man?”
The Japanese: ” But what will this do to the world economy?”
@C. Clavin: seriously, they made money selling books about themselves and doing speeches after they left the white house. a nice chunk of that could be considered illicit campaign contributions and payoffs for services rendered but nobody really cares. her petulant whining about how hard it was to buy 2 million dollar homes after they left the white house (and were “broke”) was really nice- 99% of Americans would love to have such problems.
btw- they couldn’t match romney at anything tangible, they’re grifters-and very successful grifters at that.
you did notice that 3 of the last 4 democrat presidents are among the 10 richest ever? yes, the party of the rich is who now?!
Considering the fact that Hillary Clinton could very well be the next president while Sarah Palin will never even get to sniff the air in the Oval Office, I’m sure Clinton will take lesser sales…
This, of course, runs completely contrary to the conventional wisdom (mostly from conservatives) that Hillary only achieved political success because so many women felt sorry for her for being the victim of Bill’s infidelity…
The GOP, of course…see, the Democrats have token rich people, just like the GOP has token minorities…in the end, it’s the Democratic Party that does more (but certainly not enough) to help the non-rich than the GOP…
@bill:
That’s just stupid.
@bill:
You’re right: Leveraging financing to acquire businesses, strip away assets, shut down plants and lay off employees, then selling the “assets” is very tangible.