Think it's so easy? Try it yourself.

[MannyGoldstein]

Suppose that *you* were unceremoniously kicked out of the White House with only $8 million and possibly some good will generated by pardoning Marc Rich and giving Wall Street everything, just everything.

What parts of your life would *you* cut?

See? Not so easy!

Regards,

Ready-For-Hillary Manny

[Gravitycollapse]

1. As someone currently living on 19K a year, 8 million could make my life comfortable until death.

[Warpy]

49. Actually, that might be just enough to ruin it.

One of the things I am most grateful to my dad for is enough money to live on but not enough to ruin my life.

As it is, I am living on interest and dividends and for the first time in my life, my income exceeds my outgo without a great deal of privation.

It helps a great deal that I finally qualified for Medicare. Being uninsurable kept me poor even when I had a decent paycheck. I never knew when the bottom would fall out, I just knew it always would.

[Initech]

87. You and me both!

[sabrina 1]

2. Manny, George Carlin explained it all. He told us that there was this 'big club' and that we 'are

not in it'.

You have to be able to empathize, and as a good liberal that should come easy to you. The rich ARE different, I know I worked for them for several years and did come to sort of sympathize with them to an extent. Eg, when they would complain to me that their $250,000 chandelier didn't exactly match the color of the door handles, I had to put myself in that position for a while.

You are probably thinking of people who lost their jobs and their homes and have never recovered, due to Wall St corruption. And probably never will. I KNOW you are.

But you can't do THAT, Manny. Those are the little people who no one expects to recover.

The powerful have different problems, and you need to put yourself in THEIR position for a while.

I'm disappointed in you as a Liberal I have to say.

[LeftyMom]

3. Bill only made $10 mil his first year out of office. I'm surprised they could afford rice and beans.

My goodness, they had hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of legal bills (that mostly got paid by donors, apparently) and one kid to put through college. That left nine million and change to pay two mortgages. My god, the privation.

They totally paid off the houses, plural, in four years. That's some real poverty there.

[napi21]

8. I'm guessing your estimate of hundreds of thousands in legal bills is a gross

underestimate! Think about how long the "kill Hillary & Bill" battle went on. Then think about the fee of the average criminal attorney charges. $600/hr. is cheap! Then guess at how many of those attorney's were working on the Clinton's cases. My guess is that the legal bills far exceeded the $10 million.

I know it's hard to even think in the terms of numbers like that. I was a corporate accountant for many years and I still have trouble getting my head around costs like that. I'm not surprised at all that the Clintons were broke when they left office.

[LeftyMom]

11. They were, by their own numbers, entirely out of debt (including mortgages) by 2004.

You don't get to cry poverty when you have enough money to pay off everything you owe and buy two houses in less time than it takes an average couple to pay off a used car. It's tone deaf, aside from being just plain stupid.

[napi21]

86. I see your point, but the was I heard Hillary, she said they were broke when they left the WH.

With the amount of $$ both of them get per speech, it's certainly easy to pay off that debt in a short time. That doesn't change the fact that when they left the WH all they had was DEBT.

[Luminous Animal]

15. And every single legal firm knew their post-Presidential earning potential and would have extended

their services for free. They weren't broke. They were not even close to broke.

[JDPriestly]

20. Hillary gets $200,000 per speech from Goldman Sachs.

Takes someone earning minimum wage 13 years to earn $200,000.

One speech.

I know that Bill and Hillary give to charity. I should hope so.

What do they know about how ordinary people live?

They were not always rich, but it's been a long time since they had to struggle.

[roguevalley]

12. someone doing an article on bill saw him at an atm. he glanced at the screen. it said

His account had one million showing on the screen

They have money. Fine. Just don't pretend you get my life, Mrs. NAFTA.

[merrily]

47. And that's probably only his checking account.

At least, that's the account from which I withdraw when I go to the ATM.

A friend who was a Wall Street (ish--office actually very near Ground Zero) lawyer when he first got out of law school told me he used to have about $50K in his checking account at any given time then. But, his big money was in his coop apt, his coop parking space and, of course, the stock market.

Now, he's sold most of those things and earns a lot less, but is much happier. Of course, he still has a nice pension fund, but, then again, he's not crying poverty, either.

[KatyMan]

69. I worked desktop support for a large oil tools company

in the late 90s, and I was responsible for the executive floor. One of the VPs called me to his (quite large) office because his computer froze. He happened to be logged into his bank account when it froze, and I couldn't help but notice he had 65k in checking, and around that same amount in several other accounts. He was a nice guy and we talked a lot and while I was working on his machine that day he was complaining about the IRS and I just sort of glanced from the screen up to him and he said (laughing) "well, I guess you don't really have a lot of sympathy for my IRS problems, eh?" and I told him not really.

The rich really are just like us, only different.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. The speechwriter who thought it wise to whine about "broke".

[merrily]

61. Tone deaf. A couple of links on the "broke" issue:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/jun/09/clinton-says-pair-dead-broke-after-white-house/

(I don't know about the Las Vegas Sun, but the Sun is merely reprinting an AP story--and Ron Fournier hasn't been with AP for a few years. )

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/09/the-clintons-left-the-white-house-in-debt-wait-what/

Plus, I cannot emphasize enough how freewheeling the rules of the Senate and the House are when it comes to the disclosures of their own members.

ETA: Plus none of these stories were written by people who are themselves without resources.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

84. Lol, that's a great answer!

[OverseaVisitor]

5. Manny, Manny, Manny

Haha,

2 answer depending if you are in the 90% or the 10%.

[blkmusclmachine]

6. Those poor, poor Clintons. Only had a few mil to scrounge off of! Yep, "dead broke." How..privileged

of them.

Hi, my name is Clinton. And I'm "dead broke."~~

[gratuitous]

7. Laugh it up now, chuckleheads

In a couple of years, you'll have a reliable horde of posters following you around and telling you what terrible Democrats, faux progressives, purity gestapo members you are, and I suppose you'd rather have President Cruz?

[Paulie]

10. Flashback to 2004...

Ham sandwich for pres

[bigtree]

13. I know what you mean

. . . folks telling you there's not a whip of a difference between parties; still, assuring us they definitely intend to vote for the Dem nominee but not giving any support to Hillary; just can't say right now who they'll support who has a dog's butt chance of defeating the republican nominee; but, hey, those Bush years weren't so bad, huh?

[JDPriestly]

21. Hillary is tone deaf when it comes to politics.

You don't try to sound poor when you are rich. Hillary is not being honest about herself.

[roguevalley]

14. faux argument about cruz. stay on topic

[merrily]

17. This is the right time. Hillary is not the only Democrat the Party can run.

[d_b]

28. hahahahahaa

I can't wait!

[bigtree]

9. Clintons? They could have shared our apartment, we always have an extra meal

. . . of course, if she happened to support something or the other that I like, folks might get the wrong idea.

Glad to see that family achieve financial success.

[merrily]

16. $8 million? In 2008, Hillary said they never had money until Bill left public service.

You have to wonder how a poor guy accumulates $8 million as Governor of Arkansas or as President.

Then again, I always wonder how some of the Senators and members of the House who were young and poor when they first got elected become multimillionaires while in office.

Still, by 2008, the Clinton fortune had gone up to around $100 million, so Mel Brooks is right. It is good to be king.

[vlakitti]

18. And how did a dirt poor Texas teacher like Lyndon Johnson

become a multimillionaire?

Johnson was fine on civil rights but suicided himself on Vietnam. He was much beeter than JFK and Clinton on almost every issue. He was a bit corrupt though.

[merrily]

23. No one's been telling us for two years that he's the inevitable nominee in 2016, though.

He ran on peace originally. And, when he failed to stop the war, but escalated, it was clear that Democratic voters would not support him.

So, as you pointed out, the man who had lusted after power his whole life did not run for re-election. (He may have misjudged: Americans have never failed to re-elect a war time President.) Then McGovern ran against Nixon. Then, Humphrey lost to Nixon and McGovern got massacred by "I am not a crook."

And that is when the conservative faction of the Democratic Party began taking taking over the Party, but the takeover was not complete until the Bill and Hillary Clinton helped found the DLC and Bill, the first DLC candidate for President won two terms.

Of course Perot sure helped Bill there, but that did not stop Democrats from believing that Third Way was magical. even though the next several Presidential nominee hopefuls that the DLC endorsed in the primaries lost the general: Gore, Lieberman and Kerry. And Obama won by running to Hillary's left. Despite all that, the meme that only centrists can win continues, as does control of the Party by the DLC/Third Way/"Pragmatic" Progressive types.

[MADem]

36. He married money. Lady Bird was rich and a smart investor. She owned a media empire.

She bankrolled his first Congressional campaign.

There is this thing called Google, it can answer these questions.

[MADem]

33. That was HER eight million; advance on HER book, paid long after she bought the house in NY.

The insinuation was typical, though. So ... expected.

Most Senators are a) Lawyers and b) Millionaires BEFORE they get to the Senate.

Reps, not so much, but they're still well off, most of them.

[merrily]

35. Hence, my prior post excluded those who were not rich when they first ran.

As far as the alleged insinuation, I used Hillary's words in 2008, after release of the joint tax return. "He never made any money until he left public service."

[MADem]

37. Hillary wasn't rich when she first ran. She was five million in debt. nt

[merrily]

38. That bit was not intended to be about Hillary, but about exactly who it said it was about.

[MADem]

39. What bit? nt

[merrily]

41. The bit in my prior post about reps and Senators who become multi-millionaires while in office.

It was not aimed at Hillary--or the Issas of Congress.

[MADem]

46. Well...Issa WAS wealthy before he ran for Congress, unlike Clinton.

He got rich selling car alarms and burning down small businesses. He even bankrolled the CA recall to get Gray Davis out of office and cried like a baby when Ahhnuld snatched his candy away.

That said, his first foray (and he spent a lot) was to try to unseat Boxer, and he couldn't even clear the primary.

[merrily]

48. That's why I excluded them both. And Hillary was doing pretty well when she ran.

I don't see much of a point to this exchange.

[MADem]

53. Well, simply to get the facts in order.

Hillary was broke when she ran--her campaign wasn't but she was. In fact, her campaign incurred debt by the end of the run, and IIRC she was bankrolling some of it. She didn't get the advance on the book (and still had legal fees hanging over her head, plus the house expenses, but at least that enabled her to see her way clear) until almost two months after she was elected and a month before she took office.

[merrily]

55. LOL!

[MADem]

59. Well, you didn't have them in order in post 16.

The way "a guy" gets that kind of money is that his wife writes a book.

So, LOL away if it makes you happy.

[merrily]

60. LOL!

[SidDithers]

68. It's Manny being Manny...nt

Sid

[MADem]

71. It's tiresome and obvious, is what it is.

Come on, general election season!

[statementofgoods]

19. I'm sad the Clintons had to struggle when leaving office

Almost as much as when I heard Mitt and Ann Romney had to sell some of the stock they owned
as college students so they could just eat some pasta.

[merrily]

25. Eaten on the ironing board, no less. To be fair, Harvard tuition was a lot cheaper in Mitt's time.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. "What parts of your life would *you* cut?"

My hair.

[joshcryer]

24. Save the outrage for when she runs.

It'll be an old story when she does, no one will care.

Of course, that's by design, her handlers know that the blogosphere / social media will completely drain this story dry by the time she runs. Then she'll say she's putting every dime into the campaign. What then?

[merrily]

26. 2008 taught us that being ""Inevitable" early on doesn't always work, either, though.

The scenario could backfire this time as well. As it is, within two years, we've gone from "No one will oppose Hillary in a primary. If she chooses to run, she'll clear the field, to "There has to be a Democratic primary in 2016."

Besides, Manny is using humor. Your post sounds more outraged than his does.

[joshcryer]

27. The 2008 primaries were 2 years in the running.

Someone needs to run and run quick to stem Clinton's run. It's a completely different landscape.

Clinton is airing out the laundry, so to speak, and will do so over the next year, it'll make the primaries a cakewalk and once she's the nominee, there won't be questions from the left, it'll all come from the right (and you can bank on the right wing bringing up stuff like this, but they will be rendered irrelevant since they're hypocrites and liars).

[merrily]

29. Either way, we'll see in a couple of years. And then, the general.

BTW, in your sentence about the right bringing up "stuff like this," to what does the pronoun "this" refer back?

[joshcryer]

30. Oh yes, it's a quicky tested debate.

Clinton should wipe the floor with 'em all, which is unfortunate, because the left failed to present a compelling challenger. It's a shame, too. The denial is strong.

[merrily]

31. We'll see. I am not going to get down about Hillary's being the nominee until she actually is.

[joshcryer]

32. I choose cynicism.

Until I get a real path to optimism, with every passing day, appears unlikely.

[merrily]

34. Cynicism? You've been a booster of Hillary lately. So, how is it cynical for you to

assume Hillary will be the nominee and win the general?

[joshcryer]

40. No I haven't.

Your posts are bizarre. I say Hillary is the likely political candidate, that doesn't mean I want her to be.

I can make an observation that is contrary to my desires. So the fuck what?

[merrily]

43. Observation? You called me petty and sexist because I pointed out an error in one of YOUR posts

about Hillary. Indeed, you went ad hom repeatedly on Manny and me on thread, fighting for Hillary's honor (or so you seemed to think) tooth and nail. Didn't sound resigned to Hillary then.

You're funny.

[joshcryer]

72. Yeah, no sexist element at all.

I mean, saying sexism and Clinton in the same sentence isn't allowed. It is impossible to observe sexism with regards to Clinton. Impossible!

[merrily]

73. Straw man much?

Your calling me sexist because I pointed out that the hyperbolic claim that YOU made about Hillary was untrue really has nothing to do with not being allowed to say Clinton and sexism in the same sentence.

[joshcryer]

74. Uh, I said her claim was untrue.

You are the one who refuses to accept the media harping on it as sexist... and of course you double down on this idiocy and try to box me in as wanting Clinton to run.

[merrily]

75. I don't recall that you led with "untrue." I do recall your claim that her retraction was

the fastest in human history, or something equally hyperbolic, which, of course, was untrue.

You don't mind if I don't continue this pissing contest, do you? I have so little patience with your recharacterizing everything, from the 2008 primary to the exchange you and I had a few days ago. It's so tedious and boring. And false.

[joshcryer]

76. You brought it up.

You are an interesting piece of work. The retraction was made shortly after the fact checkers discovered it.

People are fallible, for example, Warren still hasn't retracted her Indian heritage claims though we know they are not true and probably a family myth (she has downplayed them however). But it's the same thing there, the media harping on such an irrelevant thing, sexist.

[MannyGoldstein]

78. Passing down info Warren actually received from her parents is similar

to Hillary claiming she was broke?

One really happened; the other is preposterous.

Growing up, my parents told me I was Jewish. Should I have not told this to people?

[joshcryer]

79. This was with regards to the media reaction to the sniper story.

I think both that and this are and were dumb talking points, even if the Clinton's were 5 million in debt when they left the White House, they were never psychologically in debt. All presidential families become multi millionaires once they leave (if they didn't while in office).

It shows how utterly out of touch the argument is.

As far as family myth, absolutely, it's not a big deal, but the media sure did make it one, which I believe was sexist. I doubt a man would have such scrutiny. Even Cruz got a pass for his background.

[azurnoir]

42. yes it is a quickly tested debate -one question will do

at this point in 2006 where was Barack Obama in terms of national politics?

[merrily]

44. Since they were declaring Hillary inevitable before the 2012 Presidential, you

could even ask, "Where was Obama in 2004?" Oh, that's right, making that famous keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention that nominated Kerry. And a lot of keynote speakers at those nominating conventions do become Presidential nominees sooner or later--or at least are intended to be.

Hmmm. Maybe Obama's nomination was not such a surprise to the Party leadership after all.

[azurnoir]

45. then perhaps we should be looking at Julian Castro

in 2004 Barack Obama was an Illinois state senator I believe his speech came and Kerry sadly lost, went but hindsight as they say is indeed quite 20/20

[MADem]

50. Hillary - Julián. 16.

[azurnoir]

51. I was hearing Hillary-Obama 2008 but it didn't turn out that way

time will tell though

[merrily]

52. It doesn't always pan out. But, I think the choice of keynote speaker, when made, is a "tell."

Also, I always wondered about that stuff Harry Reid was reported to have said, about Obama being articulate, etc. Obama went to his defense, saying "He was trying to help me." But, Harry was not speaking publicly at that time. It seems to have been before Obama was very well known, because, once he was known, no one had to mention that he was articulate (whether or not it's racist to say that).

Anyway, I always wondered to whom Harry made that speech touting Obama that later became infamous and when he made it. It was pretty clear to me through most of the 2008 campaign that Hillary was not the first choice of the PTB in the party. At least once the campaign really got going.

[azurnoir]

56. I'll be honest here my take on 2008 was that Obama was campaigning on national issues

and Hillary was campaigning on issues such as Jeremiah Wright , 3am red phone calls..........

[merrily]

58. Let's assume that's so, though I think the two campaigns did a bit of both things, a bit national

and a bit negative on the other frontrunner, at least through their proxies. And once Hillary fell behind, negative campaigning was the way to go--and she got more negative the further she fell behind. But, let's say your observation was 100% true from the jump to the finish of the primaries.

That would go to what might have swayed Democratic primary voters, wouldn't it? That still would does not speak to what the PTB of the Party may have thinking in 2004 or 2008, would it?

[azurnoir]

62. In 2004 no 20008 however could be another story

my take was that it was the negative campaigning that put her behind in the first place, and she for whatever reason continued on that course, IMO if she had chosen otherwise we might have a second President Clinton now

[merrily]

63. Even as to 2008, your comment still seems to me to be going to what may have swayed voters

in the primary, not what the PTB were thinking.

I was a huge Obama supporter during that primary, from very early on and defended him against, against both Hillaryites and Republicans and even I secretly thought that the fix had been from the higher ups for Obama, though I kept mum about that then. (I resolved a couple of years later that never again will I keep mum about either facts or my opinions simply out of sheer loyalty to one side or the other, but that is another story entirely.)

I am not getting from your posts what you think their respective primary campaigns had to do with who the PTB may have been backing. I think it was Obama all along, more secretly at first, but I thought it got pretty obvious as the primaries progressed.

[azurnoir]

64. that's because I have no idea who they were backing and perhaps work under the apparent delusion

that it is the rank and file that chooses the candidate not the party bosses

[merrily]

65. So far, yes, the rank and file voters do choose--or, at least, so it seems on the surface.

But, as we all know, rank and file voters can be influenced, subtly and not so subtly.

Besides, the Party created Super Delegates for the sole purpose of making sure the rank and file did not nominate anyone whom the Party PTB didn't want as the the nominee. They have not yet had to override the rank and file, but, as I said, the rank and file voter can be influenced, including by friendly media. I think the coverage of Dean's "war whoop" by the media was shocking, and then, I was firmly in Kerry's camp, in part because I still saw him as liberal then and in part because I live in Boston and he was a "favorite son."

Not to mention that every decision that the DNC had to make about that primary went in Obama's favor.

And, as I said, I always wondered to whom Reid made that speech.

In any event, word on the street at the time was that they wanted Obama because they thought Hillary carried too much Clinton baggage.

And, I don't think it's ever wise to take what happens on the surface in politics as being all that happens in politics.

[azurnoir]

54. I wonder if Hillary's new book Hard Choices will give her any traction?

her book tour is being touted as a campaign 'dry run' by some

[merrily]

57. She's been "dry running" since at least 2000.

Some say all her life, and maybe that is so. However, when she was a Goldwater Girl, the prospect of a woman becoming chief of surgery, let alone President and Commander in Chief, seemed beyond imagining.

[tk2kewl]

66. It's hard to be taken seriously by her hedge fund mgr and CEO friends...

with only a mere 8mil

[jwirr]

67. If your houses are worth 8m and you owe 10+m you are in debt. The houses will have a lien on them

so you will not be able to sell them without giving the money to those you owe so you have a cash flow problem. That seems like dead broke to me.

[JEB]

70. Well, they have fewer houses than the McCains or Rmoneys.

It's a choice between the lesser of two rich.

[JVS]

77. Former presidents receive a salary from the government.

They are also provided with transition funding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_Presidents_Act

I think you can rest assured that Hillary's mom didn't get a phone call asking if they could move in with her.

[spanone]

80. buying into the r.w.b.s. link to hillary's assets upon leaving wh?

[MannyGoldstein]

81. Yes, I'm a right-wing bull@#$% artist.

Got me.

[spanone]

82. link?

[MannyGoldstein]

83. A link to my being a right-wing bull@#$% artist?

There's no shortage of these on DU - just look.

[spanone]

85. link?