Textbook example of [politician opening mouth and inserting foot

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Note the Clintons are worth something collectively north of $100mm.

June 22nd, 2014
07:21 PM ET

Hillary Clinton steps in it again with 'not truly well off' comment
Posted by
CNN's Dan Merica and Jason Seher
Updated 11:07 a.m. ET, 6/23/2014

(CNN) - Hillary Clinton said two weeks ago that her family was "dead broke" when they left the White House in 2001. She quickly tried to clean up the comments.

But the clean-up doesn't appear to have been committed to memory.

Follow @danmericacnn Follow @jhseher

In an interview with Britain's Guardian published over the weekend, Clinton reignited the debate over her wealth by comparing herself to other wealthy people who Clinton said were "truly well off."
Asked by the paper whether she would represent the populist strain of her party, Clinton said, "They don't see me as part of the problem 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."

Questions about Clinton's wealth and whether she is in touch with average Americans plagued the former secretary of state for the first week of her "Hard Choices" memoir tour.

The story line started in the tour's first interview with ABC News when Clinton said that her family was "dead broke" after her husband’s tenure in the Oval Office. She later added that her family had "no money" in 2001 and "struggled to piece together the resources" for mortgages and her daughter Chelsea's college education.

"You know, it was not easy," Clinton said earlier this month.

The Clintons departed the White House in debt due to enormous legal fees. By the end of 2000, their debt totaled somewhere between $2.28 million to $10.6 million. What Clinton left out from her answer, though, was that her family had massive book advances in the works, a sizable government pension, and the prospect of making millions on the speaking circuit.

Right wing groups, looking to carve a narrative out of Clinton's clumsy wealth comments, have continued to hit Clinton, who is admittedly considering a run for the presidency in 2016.

The Republican National Committee blasted the comment over the weekend with an email titled, "World's Smallest Violin Is Playing For Hillary."

"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," Tim Miller, the executive director of America Rising, an anti-Clinton outside super PAC, said in an email to reporters.

A spokesman for Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton rapid response group, argued that Clinton was trying to make a point about "paying your fair share in taxes," unlike some who avoid taxes by holding offshore financial accounts.

"Mr. Miller has selective memory if he doesn't recall reports that Mitt Romney reportedly maintained more than 30 million dollars in the Cayman Islands," Adrienne Elrod said, referring to the 2012 GOP presidential nominee.

But Republicans still see Clinton as out of touch with everyday Americans. Her comments about wealth, as well as a comment from earlier this year when Clinton admitted she has not driven a car since 1996, are helping Republicans with that narrative.

The attack lines appear to be taking hold with Democrats, too. The Washington Post reported on Sunday that Democrats were also questioning whether Clinton was out of touch with Americans.

“It’s going to be a massive issue for her,” an unnamed former adviser to President Obama told the Post. “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.”

For those closely watching 2016 presidential politics, Vice President Joe Biden made some comments Monday morning that could be interpreted as an effort to draw a contrast with Clinton, a potential rival should they both run for the Democratic nomination.

Biden, at a White House summit focused on working families, said he “makes a lot of money” as vice president, but the former senator made sure to mention he was “listed as the poorest man in Congress” and said he has “no savings account.” He went on, however, to stress that he’s been “really, really fortunate” compared to the way others have struggled. (Biden's financial disclosures indicate he does, in fact, have a savings account.)

After her first clumsy comment at the start of the book tour, Clinton looked to clean up the mistake. She told a friendly audience in Chicago earlier this month that her "dead broke" comment "may have not been the most artful way of saying that, you know, Bill and I have gone through a lot of different phases in your lives."

Clinton did, however, stand by the comments, later adding that her family has "been blessed," but noted that they have also "gone through ups and downs like a lot of people."

What’s likely worrying Clinton supporters is the notion that labeling someone “out-of-touch” has worked to disqualify presidential hopefuls in the past.

Bill Clinton turned his fractured, rural upbringing in Arkansas into an asset in the 1992 presidential race by contrasting himself with the incumbent President George H.W. Bush. Clinton cast Bush as out-of-touch and, in some cases, old, and voters kicked Bush out of office after four years.

More recently, Obama's 2012 campaign and its allies spent millions casting Romney as a wealthy capitalist who didn't understand the middle class or its problems. Obama went on to defeat Romney, handily.

**whembly**

I'm confused... is HRC attempting to draw a distinction between "earned" wealth, ie derived from actively working to unearned wealth (gained from passive investment)?

She doesn't want to get Romney'ed here...

**Jihadin**

That's a two edge sword.

**Ouze**

Hillary Clinton said two weeks ago that her family was "dead broke" when they left the White House in 2001.

I remember her saying this a few weeks ago.

When I was a kid, we were also dead broke - I had to wear my brothers clothes, my mom was working two jobs, we were eating government cheese, and the power kept getting cut off for nonpayment as my mom struggled to cover as many bills as she could. Similarly, there were a few winters my wife went through where they were eating whatever her then-husband could hunt, be it deer or squirrel, and if not then, MRE's he would "liberate" from the base.

In both cases, the women in my life probably should have just gone on a speaking tour and earned a few million in a month or so. I wish we had known that, then.

**Jihadin**

Give you a Amen, Brother.

Edit
Patched corduroy pants. I will never own nor provide one to my kids base on my childhood experience

**daedalus**

So, wait, the party that claims it represents the common man despite being an obvious supporter of oligarchy is attacking the party that claims it represents the common man despite being an obvious supporter of oligarchy for being the party that claims it represents the common man despite being an obvious supporter of oligarchy?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Hillary Clinton said two weeks ago that her family was "dead broke" when they left the White House in 2001.

I remember her saying this a few weeks ago.

When I was a kid, we were also dead broke - I had to wear my brothers clothes, my mom was working two jobs, we were eating government cheese, and the power kept getting cut off for nonpayment as my mom struggled to cover as many bills as she could. Similarly, there were a few winters my wife went through where they were eating whatever her then-husband could hunt, be it deer or squirrel, and if not then, MRE's he would "liberate" from the base.

In both cases, the women in my life probably should have just gone on a speaking tour and earned a few million in a month or so. I wish we had known that, then.

No kidding. My parents are not as financially well off as they've been before. Maybe I should recommend they cash in on their book deals. They'd have sold some of the summer homes already, but they forgot where most of them were.

**Jihadin**

daedalus wrote:
So, wait, the party that claims it represents the common man despite being an obvious supporter of oligarchy is attacking the party that claims it represents the common man despite being an obvious supporter of oligarchy for being the party that claims it represents the common man despite being an obvious supporter of oligarchy?

When either side makes a claim that they cannot relate to then either side can be declared "Dumb"

**Ouze**

daedalus wrote:
So, wait, the party that claims it represents the common man despite being an obvious supporter of oligarchy is attacking the party that claims it represents the common man despite being an obvious supporter of oligarchy for being the party that claims it represents the common man despite being an obvious supporter of oligarchy?

Spoiler:

We have to go deeper.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
Hillary Clinton said two weeks ago that her family was "dead broke" when they left the White House in 2001.

I remember her saying this a few weeks ago.

When I was a kid, we were also dead broke - I had to wear my brothers clothes, my mom was working two jobs, we were eating government cheese, and the power kept getting cut off for nonpayment as my mom struggled to cover as many bills as she could. Similarly, there were a few winters my wife went through where they were eating whatever her then-husband could hunt, be it deer or squirrel, and if not then, MRE's he would "liberate" from the base.

In both cases, the women in my life probably should have just gone on a speaking tour and earned a few million in a month or so. I wish we had known that, then.

Man I hated government cheese.

**kronk**

Ouze wrote:

We have to go deeper.

Heh. That's what your mom said.

As for Hillary, I'm not sure

"You know, it was not easy," Clinton said earlier this month.

is going to fly when she's making $200k per speaking engagement and has over $100MM in assets. She might not want to take that approach.

**Frazzled**

daedalus wrote:
So, wait, the party that claims it represents the common man despite being an obvious supporter of oligarchy is attacking the party that claims it represents the common man despite being an obvious supporter of oligarchy for being the party that claims it represents the common man despite being an obvious supporter of oligarchy?

.

I think you've nailed it on the head.

**Medium of Death**

What a witch.

Maybe the Republicans could take her on instead?

**whembly**

Medium of Death wrote:
What a witch.

Maybe the Republicans could take her on instead?

heh... not likely.

I'm still in the belief that if she runs, there's no Republican who can beat her.

**Kilkrazy**

To be fair, Hilary Clinton did not spring fully formed from the brow of Zeus as a top flight public speaker, she was born a middle-class family and bettered herself through talent, study and hard work. Isn't that the American dream in action?

**d-usa**

Kilkrazy wrote:
To be fair, Hilary Clinton did not spring fully formed from the brow of Zeus as a top flight public speaker, she was born a middle-class family and bettered herself through talent, study and hard work. Isn't that the American dream in action?

She dreams left instead of right, so no.

**Dreadclaw69**

Kilkrazy wrote:
To be fair, Hilary Clinton did not spring fully formed from the brow of Zeus as a top flight public speaker, she was born a middle-class family and bettered herself through talent, study and hard work. Isn't that the American dream in action?

Absolutely, and she deserves credit for it. But for a lot of people claiming that having $100 million is not "truly well off" may be alienating

**d-usa**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
To be fair, Hilary Clinton did not spring fully formed from the brow of Zeus as a top flight public speaker, she was born a middle-class family and bettered herself through talent, study and hard work. Isn't that the American dream in action?

Absolutely, and she deserves credit for it. But for a lot of people claiming that having $100 million is not "truly well off" may be alienating

Well, with the tax burden that absolutely cripples everybody it is really not all that much...

**whembly**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
To be fair, Hilary Clinton did not spring fully formed from the brow of Zeus as a top flight public speaker, she was born a middle-class family and bettered herself through talent, study and hard work. Isn't that the American dream in action?

Absolutely, and she deserves credit for it. But for a lot of people claiming that having $100 million is not "truly well off" may be alienating

Yeah... the Democrats sorta dug a hole for themselves by attacking Romney's wealth... subliminally campaigning that wealth=evil and/or the candidate can't possibly understand the plights of the poor/middle class.

If they were smart, they should stop being so defensive about it... gak, FDR & Kennedy did okay at the WH despite being wealthy!

**hotsauceman1**

This is like my aunt complaining about not being able to sell their 10million dollar mansion and complaining she is broke because she has to pay for her sons college.
I hae rich people.

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
Well, with the tax burden that absolutely cripples everybody it is really not all that much...

The poor dears. Maybe we should have a whip around for them

whembly wrote:
Yeah... the Democrats sorta dug a hole for themselves by attacking Romney's wealth... subliminally campaigning that wealth=evil and/or the candidate can't possibly understand the plights of the poor/middle class.

If they were smart, they should stop being so defensive about it... gak, FDR & Kennedy did okay at the WH despite being wealthy!

With the party's current focus on income inequality her remarks were ill timed

**Jihadin**

Are they part of the "1%"?

**whembly**

Jihadin wrote:
Are they part of the "1%"?

Absolutely. Well... to be honest, both parties are part of the 1 percent.

Democrats: The Real Party Of The Rich

Free Speech: Right after the Supreme Court's decision to lift limits on campaign contributions, Democrats and their left-wing supporters assaulted the decision as a boon to Republicans, "the party of the rich."

This of course is part of a far-wider narrative — slavishly repeated by largely unquestioning liberal media — that the GOP outspends Democrats on campaigns thanks to big-buck donors like the billionaire Koch brothers.

But, as it turns out, that's a lie — as big a lie, in fact, as "you can keep your insurance," "you can keep your doctor" and "ObamaCare will bend the cost curve down."

By almost every measure, in fact, it's the Democrats, not the Republicans, who are the party of the rich.

Start with Congress itself. Who are the wealthiest members? Well, there are 269 millionaires among Congress' 535 members. And most of them are Democrats.

And contrary to the hand-wringing on the left about the Supreme Court's 5-4 McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling Wednesday, Democrats far outspend Republicans on elections. It isn't even close.

According to OpenSecrets.org, from 1989 to 2014 rich donors gave Democrats $1.15 billion — $416 million more than the $736 million given to the GOP. Among the top 10 donors to both parties, Democrat supporters outspent Republican supporters 2-to-1.

But what about the villainous Koch brothers, those conservative plutocrats supposedly seeking to control American politics? They rank 59th on the list of big givers — behind 18 unions and No. 1 Act Blue, the massive left-wing fund raiser that gives only to Democrats.

Indeed, a recent book, "The New Leviathan," says donations to Democrats outstrip those to Republicans 7-to-1. How can this be? Democrat support soars when you include unions, universities, superPACs, nonprofits, left-wing interest groups, and — ready for this? — Wall Street (which overwhelmingly favors Democrats).

So Democrats don't really want to restrain money in politics. Just the money that goes to Republicans.

Voters need to stop listening to the lies. Since 2008, the number of people who call themselves middle class has plunged from 53% to 44%, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center.

And, by President Obama's own admission, his party's control of Congress and the White House has led to 95% of all income gains going to the top 1% in income.

So please, enough of this about Democrats being the party of the little guy.

**Ahtman**

Both parties are parties of the rich.

**Jihadin**

Try so hard to not be label with the 1% group

**Ouze**

Kilkrazy wrote:
To be fair, Hilary Clinton did not spring fully formed from the brow of Zeus as a top flight public speaker, she was born a middle-class family and bettered herself through talent, study and hard work. Isn't that the American dream in action?

Of course, so she more than most in her income class should know how foolish that statement was, and be taken to task for it.

**Kilkrazy**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
To be fair, Hilary Clinton did not spring fully formed from the brow of Zeus as a top flight public speaker, she was born a middle-class family and bettered herself through talent, study and hard work. Isn't that the American dream in action?

Absolutely, and she deserves credit for it. But for a lot of people claiming that having $100 million is not "truly well off" may be alienating

$100 million may rightly seem like a lot to you and me but to ultra-high net-worth people it is chump change.

**Ahtman**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
To be fair, Hilary Clinton did not spring fully formed from the brow of Zeus as a top flight public speaker, she was born a middle-class family and bettered herself through talent, study and hard work. Isn't that the American dream in action?

Absolutely, and she deserves credit for it. But for a lot of people claiming that having $100 million is not "truly well off" may be alienating

$100 million may rightly seem like a lot to you and me but to ultra-high net-worth people it is chump change.

Which doesn't change the fact that it isn't chump change. Losing perspective isn't a crime of course, but when running for office it is probably not best to equate being broke when excessively wealthy while (eventually) courting the votes of those who actually don't have much of anything. Forgoing anything else, it is just bad politics, and as a professional politician and diplomat she should know better.

**whembly**

Ahtman wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
To be fair, Hilary Clinton did not spring fully formed from the brow of Zeus as a top flight public speaker, she was born a middle-class family and bettered herself through talent, study and hard work. Isn't that the American dream in action?

Absolutely, and she deserves credit for it. But for a lot of people claiming that having $100 million is not "truly well off" may be alienating

$100 million may rightly seem like a lot to you and me but to ultra-high net-worth people it is chump change.

Which doesn't change the fact that it isn't chump change. Losing perspective isn't a crime of course, but when running for office it is probably not best to equate being broke when excessively wealthy while (eventually) courting the votes of those who actually don't have much of anything. Forgoing anything else, it is just bad politics, and as a professional politician and diplomat she should know better.

Agreed...

There's a *thing* going on around the 'Net and I'm not quite sure if I'd agree...

But the fact that she keeps flubbing this highlights that she's a poor campaigner? Note, that I did not say she's a bad candidate... just her ability to campaign.

**Dreadclaw69**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
To be fair, Hilary Clinton did not spring fully formed from the brow of Zeus as a top flight public speaker, she was born a middle-class family and bettered herself through talent, study and hard work. Isn't that the American dream in action?

Absolutely, and she deserves credit for it. But for a lot of people claiming that having $100 million is not "truly well off" may be alienating

$100 million may rightly seem like a lot to you and me but to ultra-high net-worth people it is chump change.

Correct. But you have to know your audience. When your party is looking to address income equality, you are potentially standing for election, and you say on record that $100 m isn't well off then you're doing your opponent's work for them

**Kilkrazy**

True.

However it is a ball drop that the Republicans will find it hard to take advantage of with their line-up of hereditary banking billionaires and so on.

The whole affair merely suggests that modern politics is bankrupt of any genuine ideas and cannot address the real concerns of the 90%.