Is it Hillary Romney Clinton now?

1. 59

   retief2000posted 11 years ago

   Is it Hillary Romney Clinton now?
   
   Hillary demonstrated a complete ignorance of what it is to be an average American. After getting a multi-million dollar book deal upon leaving the White House she found it difficult for she and Bill to pay for their HOUSES and Chelsea's IVY LEAGUE education.  Not a modest bungalow and a State University. A mansion and the Ivy League. Boo Hoo. Should she get the Romney and McCain treatment or is that just reserved for Republicans who are fat cat rich and callous?

   replyreport
2. 0

   Old Poolmanposted 11 years ago

   Like she said about Benghazi, "What difference does it make?"  Here they were down to their last 3.5 Million and she thought they were broke.  I'll bet she would understand what needs to be done to help the poor.
   I shudder to think what it will be like if she were to be elected as our next President.

   replyreport
3. 80

   bethperryposted 11 years ago

   I don't think she'd know real poverty if it came and bit her on the ankle. And she'll probably be treated like a queen for the rest of her life.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Give the proportions of another part of her anatomy, I doubt the biting would be of her ankle.

      replyreport
4. 78

   tsadjatkoposted 11 years ago

   
   
   Face it, Hil liar y is an unethical liar plain and simple. From her early career she was fired from the Watergate investigation by her own party leaders for lying and unethical behavior. Does a Tiger change it's stripes?
   
   There she goes again By DICK MORRIS ...
   
   The latest iteration of her wish to downplay her wealth so as to be just plain folk was her bald assertions to Diane Sawyer that she and Bill were "dead broke" and "in debt" when she left the White House, struggling to "you know, piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, Chelsea's education, you know, it was not easy."
   
   Some dead broke! Some "not easy"! Consider this:
   
   Her joint tax return with Bill for 2001 showed a $16,165,110 income for her first year out of the White House.
   
   Even before they left the White House, their joint income for 2000 was $359,000, scarcely in the "dead broke" category, particularly when you consider that the Clintons had none of the normal expenses that the rest of us do, such as housing, cars, child care, insurance, electricity, landscaping, healthcare -- all covered by the taxpayers. All they had to pay for was dry cleaning, food and college tuition for Chelsea.
   
   Hillary signed a book contract with an $8 million advance in the closing weeks of Bill's presidency and Bill inked a $15 million deal at about the same time. She got more than $2 million of this in 2001. Is that dead broke?
   
   The Clintons bought a house in September of 1999 in Chappaqua, N.Y., for $1.7 million. In December of 2000, they also purchased a $2.85 million house in Washington, D.C. before Bill left office. Do people who are dead broke and in debt do this?
   
   Chelsea had graduated from college by the end of Bill's term and her tuition for graduate work at Oxford for the year 2001 could not have been too burdensome for a family that would earn $16 million that year.
   
   So why does Hillary Clinton do this? Why make up stories of poverty when they were verifiable multimillionaires?
   
   The former first lady has always felt the need to adjust the truth of her extraordinary circumstances -- up or down -- to suit her political needs of the moment. She wants to be just like us. So, for example, she's spoken of the burdens of providing child care for Chelsea, even as the Clintons had the luxuries of an extensive staff of taxpayer-funded state police and babysitters during Chelsea's early years and a full White House and Secret Service staff afterwards. She is a lying sicko, just like Bill.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The scary part is that many in the Bill Clinton fan club think that by electing Hillary they would have their beloved Bill back again.

      replyreport
   2. 78

      tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, they are sickos too. Anyone so shallow as to even entertain that thought as a rationalization for electing Hil liar y shouldn't be allowed to be out walking the streets - they should be out in a straight jacket and sent to the VA psyche ward

      replyreport
   3. 59

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      If sent to a VA psyche ward they would have to wait until long after the election for admittance.

      replyreport
5. 80

   junksellerposted 11 years ago

   Not sure it matters too much what you are, so much as what you sell. Romney and McCain are both stiff and appear silly when they try to be an everyman, like Romney betting someone 10,000 bucks. Romney also said really dumb things like his 47% comment, which, to use your word, was callous. I think that part of it matters more than the being rich.
   
   Hillary is much more personable and pulls off that act pretty good. What might get her in trouble is lying about it. For instance, talking about being dead broke and going through what other people go through is asinine. When allegedly dead broke they were able to secure close to a $1.7 million loan to buy a house. You're not struggling if that is a possibility.
   
   I couldn't secure a $1.70 loan to buy a cheeseburger: THAT is dead broke.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      She wasn't too "personable"  with Terry Gross.

      replyreport
   2. 80

      junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Well, I didn't say it was natural and that she was always on, but it is an act within her capacity. Romney and McCain not so much. I don't think that will be an issue for her, when it matters.

      replyreport
6. 72

   dashingscorpioposted 11 years ago

   From the part of the interview I saw she was referring to being $12 Million in debt when they initially left the Whitehouse. The multi-million dollar book deals and speaking engagements came afterwards.
   I'm fairly certain there will be those who will give her the Romney and McCain treatment. Isn't that what this question is designed to do?
   Secondly she is already catching a lot of heat considering she has not even announced if she is going to run for president! No other "potential candidate" from either party has been put under this kind of microscope (2 years) away from an election!
   I guess it's just a sign of the times we live in.
   We'll have to wait two years from now assuming that she runs and (wins) the Democrat nomination. (Everyone thought that would happen 2008 and it didn't). At any rate I think it's way too early for either party to get too fired up about 2016.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Ted Cruz would be amused at your comment. She Received an $8 mil. book deal upon leaving the WH and considering her success at investing she should have been able to turn that into a tidy profit.

      replyreport