DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Saturday, February 06, 2016

Hillary Clinton: $150,000 "Isn't Very Much Money"

by JASmius

Here is some sage and sound advice to Hillary Clinton, free of charge: Whenever you are asked a question - ANY question - that includes a dollar sum in it, give the same one-word answer that Will Smith's Hancock character did when it was his turn in his prison support group: "Pass".  Because every time she answers one of these questions, she just buries herself ever deeper in the ol' bank vault:

Video has emerged of Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton telling an anti-fossil fuels [extrem]ist on the campaign trail in Dover, New Hampshire on Wednesday that the $150,000 she has received in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry “is not very much” money.

Just to lend some perspective to this comment, my household could subsist on a hundred and fifty grand for ten years, not figuring in inflation.  So yeah, your majesty, $150,000 IS a lot of money for pretty much any voter of either party and beyond who's within earshot of tin-eared, stupid-ass remarks like that one.

[Mrs.] Clinton, who once came under fire for claiming that she was “dead broke” after leaving the White House in 2001, first claimed ignorance about the donations when an [extrem]ist with the environmental group 350 Action asked her whether she would be willing to “take a stand against any more campaign contributions” from Big Oil. [Mrs.] Clinton’s Democrat [rival], Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, has pledged not to accept money from the industry.

“Yeah, I don’t even know what you’re referring to, but big oil knows I’m not their friends, so they must have put it in the wrong envelope,” [Mrs.] Clinton responded.

Fascinating.  Either (1) she's standard-level full of crap, or (2) she's so unimaginably wealthy that she really can't keep track of all the six- and seven-figure speaking fees she's Hoovered up over the years - and besides, she's got "people" to handle such things for her - and (3) if she took somebody else's money, isn't that a pretty close approximation of mail fraud?  I'd ask if her "people" are really that loose-as-a-goose with her in-flowing revenue streams, but than I remember the words "Clinton Foundation" and the fourteen years of tax refilings they did last year and the feeling goes away.

Here was a representative reaction from the voting demographic from which she is fairly and plaintively begging for support like Katy Perry's breasts:

If your reaction to the idea of $150,000 from fossil fuel interests not being much is ‘sorry, WHAT?’ you are not alone…

It’s great that Hillary has been so vocal about taking down fossil fuels. But until she rejects money from the fracking industry, big oil, and other fossil fuel interests, how will she make voters believe that she means business?

Soon after claiming that she would “stop fossil fuels” if elected, Hillary admitted that she would not ban fracking as president. The fracking industry, it should be noted, donates more to her campaign than any other fossil fuel interest.

"Protection" money, in other words.  Or "tribute".  "Big Oil" is hedging its bets, like every "big" industry does.  It's how the game is played.  Sure, Bernie Sanders is "pure" by not taking their lucre, but he's just starving his national candidacy of much-needed resources in the process.    Just like Mrs. Clinton is starving herself of leftwingnut votes by gorging herself on it.

Speaking of which, this is an awfully perspective-reinforcing CNN report, now isn't it?:

Between 2001 and last spring, when Hillary Clinton launched her second presidential campaign, she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, brought in more than $153 million for making paid speeches, including millions for addresses given to big banks, according to a new CNN analysis.

The powerhouse political couple gave a total of 729 speeches between February 2001, just after the former president finished his second term in the White House and through this past May, earning an average of $210,795 per speech, the analysis shows.

This money includes at least $7.7 million paid out for thirty-nine speeches the couple gave over the years to big banks that include Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary pocketing at least $1.8 million herself for eight of those speeches.

Just to lend some perspective to that report, my household could subsist on $153,000,000 for a real f**king long time.  Something on the order of ten millennia, AAMOF.  I'd be happy to take even one of those speeches off her and Bill's hands.  Okay, five; even subsistence doesn't go as far as it used to.  But then what does she care?  It's not like my vote will ever be in play for her anyway.

Once again, if you're looking for a reason why the Empress's campaign is doing its Metrodome imitation....

....there you go.

How panicked is the Donk "establishment" at this point?  They're going back to the Joe Biden well again:

Fox News has learned that a prominent backer of the “Draft Biden 2016″ movement, Tulsa businessman Bill Bartmann, fired off an email Friday afternoon to several dozen Democrat allies musing about the possibility of reviving the push for Biden.

“I would urge all of you to join me in ‘keeping our powder dry’ until we see if for the good of the party and the country, we should resurrect (sic) the Draft Biden movement,” Bartmann wrote to fellow Democrats who had been involved in trying to draft Biden last year.

“We cannot afford to lose the White House.”

In his email, Bartmann specifically cited as an impetus for his concern a new national poll showing a steep dive for [Mrs.] Clinton, who just barely beat Sanders in Iowa and now trails him by double digits here in New Hampshire.

He DOES know Hillary will have him killed for his "lack of vision," doesn't he?

But looking at it afresh, and leaving aside that if it was too late for Slow Joe to mount a third presidential bid four months ago when he declined to run little time there was to mount a third national campaign, it's completely impossible now, what would be the plus side of Biden '16?  Well, he's O's veep and would represent (in Charlie McCarthy fashion) a third Obama term, should The One  be too lazy to decree it to himself.  And he could undoubtedly win a third consecutive election if he ran, so Biden would win in a walk on the Bush41 template, right?

Um, not necessarily:

Hillary has [delusions] of appealing to the Obama coalition on the basis of history; she repeatedly and explicitly campaigns to become the first woman president. Sanders appeals to young, [communist extrem]ists who want an authentic figure who will fight the power. Both [theoretically excite] key demographics in the Democrat base. Which of those demographics would Joe Biden excite? Biden represented Delaware and was a great friend to the financial and credit industries against which both Sanders and now Hillary [pretends to] rail to churn up [communist] passion. He’s been in Washington for more than forty years and has been part of the Democrat establishment for at least thirty of those years. The only people Biden could bring out would be the James Webb demographic … and look how well that worked for Webb in this campaign. [Communist] energy would dissipate quickly with Biden as the nominee, and there wouldn’t be enough energy left in the Webb demos to replace it.

As a candidate, Biden would be a disaster on the campaign trail, too. He ran twice for president; his first attempt ended in disgrace after his plagiarism of Neil Kinnock’s speeches came to light. His second, in 2007, ran aground almost immediately. The only people who take Biden seriously are either named Biden or Obama.

None of Mrs. Clinton's or Senator Sanders's strengths, all of their weaknesses.  Plus the ongoing betting pools of how often he'd show up at campaign events without his pants.

And just think, folks; for all of that, with all those hypercane-force headwinds blowing howlingly against them, the Democrats can and will still retain the White House if Republicans are abjectly stupid enough to nominate You Know Who....

Make it ten speeches and I'll never have to pay attention to this crapola ever again.  It'd almost be worth putting on a tie again.

UPDATE: As long as we're indulging in comic fantasizing....

Watch Hillary's candidacy sink and sink. Nobody buying and more big trouble coming on emails. Dems looking for replacement. John Kerry?

I was going to say it's a pity that Walter Mondale isn't still alive, but he is, actually.  Which means he's probably going to be getting a call any minute now.

No comments: