As Hillary Clinton emerges from the shadows and into the media spotlight again, she has much to explain as she launches her likely presidential candidacy. This certainly includes her still-hazy role in the Benghazi scandal, but also a trio of things the Clintons never had when they were in the White House – money, a high-profile daughter, and most of all, compromised health.
Hillary has said she “takes responsibility” for what happened in Benghazi in one breath while denying any knowledge of what actually happened and blaming underlings in the next. But that seems to have taken a backseat to the mocking she has taken for her claim that she and Bill were “dead broke” and millions of dollars in the hole when they left the White House…as if they were not poised to instantly cash in on their positions and amass the very fortune that is now theirs. Of course, she chose not to mention that she had already received an $8 million book advance as she was preparing to leave the White House, and thanks in part to a loan of more than a million dollars from their bosom buddy Terry McAuliffe (I’m told he now has some kind of job in Virginia politics) proceeded immediately to buy homes in two of the most expensive communities in the nation, Chappaqua, NY and the Observatory Circle neighborhood in DC. It was particularly amusing that Hillary lamented to Diane Sawyer of ABC of her and Bill’s struggles to pay “mortgages for houses” – yes, houses, plural – as she and Bill fought to stave off financial destitution.
The Clintons’ fortune – estimated at more than $100 million – then become a source of ridicule in recent days, after Hillary put her foot in her mouth again by claiming “…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.”
Of course, one little detail about that “hard work” is that, as Diane Sawyer said to Hillary, most of us don’t make four times the average US yearly income for a one hour speech. That would be $200,000 for 60 minutes of work.
So, you say, what exactly is wrong with Mrs. Clinton making as much as possible for as little work as possible? Is that not capitalism at work, making what the market will bear? Is it not what we all hope for? Indeed it is. The problem is that Hillary’s pleas of poverty and tone-deaf remarks cast her in a hypocritical light, especially as the presumed standard bearer for a party that has made income inequality its central issue and succeeded in recent years by demonizing the rich, or to cast the best possible light on it, championing society’s victims.
Now, it would not be surprising if her daughter Chelsea cashed in on her parents’ fame and connections. She would hardly be the first famous offspring to do so. Bill and Hill protected Chelsea during their White House days by warning the media not to cast any sort of spotlight on her, with the implicit warning that their level of access to the president would depend on whether they honored that warning. But now that Chelsea has chosen to become a high-profile public figure by joining the family business as vice chair of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, comparing the trajectory of her still-young life with her statements about money reveals, like her mother, a remarkable disconnect.
Indeed, Chelsea appears to be the apple that falls not far from the tree, after saying, “I’ve tried really hard to care about things that were very different from my parents. I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t.”
Really? It seems that Chelsea has raked in more than $26,000 for each of the minutes she has been on the air during a $600,000 per year contract as a “special correspondent” with NBC (and those were very few minutes – less than one hour of reporting in the 31 months since she “joined” the network). This, despite the fact she had not one stitch of training or background or experience in broadcasting. This is an obvious and entirely transparent attempt by NBC to assure access to Chelsea’s parents, but that is hardly the end of it. She lives in a $10 million apartment, had a wedding that cost at least $3 million and is married to a man with the ultimate capitalist profession, hedge fund manager. Pretty easy to not care about money under those circumstances, I suppose.
But the money and the musings of her daughter pale in comparison to the threat posed by Hillary’s health. Karl Rove brought the issue to light recently, sparing future GOP presidential candidates the trouble of bringing it up themselves, but it seems she has suffered more fainting spells than publicly known, is prone to have blood clots, and may be at serious risk of a stroke, according to the book, “Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas,” by Edward Klein. And seeing that Mr. Klein served as editor-in-chief of The New York Times Magazine for a decade, this can hardly be considered a politically motivated assertion.
Will this cause Hillary not to run, or for the Democrats to encourage other challengers for the nomination? It certainly might, because one can imagine the Dems’ nightmare scenario in which she wins the nomination only to have her health arise as a serious issue when it is too late for them to turn to another candidate.
Mrs. Clinton will certainly gain many votes by virtue of simply being a woman, and for the left, a feminist role model. But it might be harder than the Democrats think to convince the voters of the role model part given that she likely would have amounted to nothing more than a historical footnote if not for the success of her husband. That is exactly the opposite of the feminist narrative, especially in light of her infamous snarky remarks as first lady about eschewing the life of baking cookies and having teas. Though she later became a Senator and Secretary of State, I am woman, hear me roar is quite the stretch for a woman who piggybacked off her spouse’s political victories.
Hillary is also more familiar to the voters than any non-incumbent candidate in recent history. While that is generally viewed as an asset, consider that Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were virtually unknown before their long-shot runs for the White House, while Ronald Reagan and Bush 43 were not well known to the voters either.
Will familiarity ultimately breed contempt for this woman who has been in the public eye for more than two decades? She was deemed unbeatable in 2008, and is being touted as such again six years later, especially given that no one has any idea who the GOP will nominate. But this time, there is no Barack Obama phenomenon to distract attention from her, and the glare of the spotlight on her in recent days has hardly been kind.
This much seems certain: when it comes to both Benghazi and her family’s money, she better get her stories straight, and be able to convince the electorate she is fully healthy, if she wants to avoid becoming the first coulda, woulda, shoulda female president.
