Reality check: if Hillary was all about self-enrichment, she would not be running for president.

[DanTex]

She is currently one of the highest draws on the speaking circuit, at $200K-$300K per speech. If she becomes president, that ends, at least for 4 years, and likely for 8. As a former president, her speaking fees would probably be a little higher (though not much, she's currently earning about the same as Bill), but she will have wasted 8 years that she won't be able to make up, money-wise.

On top of that, unlike most everyone else running for president, with the possible exceptions of Trump and maybe Bush, she already has all the connections that a person can possibly have. She knows everyone. So it's not like the presidency is going to be opening new doors to her. Every door is already open to her.

Everything I've just said is completely obvious, and yet I hear over and over again that Hillary is in this for financial gain. That she won't change the system because the system feeds her money. Which is absurd. If she was after money, she would sit on the sidelines and earn money.

[virtualobserver]

1. She is not only interested in self-enrichment, she also wants power.

[DanTex]

2. Everyone running for president, by definition, wants power.

[virtualobserver]

6. yes, but does everyone refer to it as "my precious"?

[azmom]

19. LOL. +10000

[Major Hogwash]

59. OMG!! That is hilarious!!

Really cute picture, too.

[upaloopa]

3. Gee not a powerful woman. Oh Noes!

[virtualobserver]

9. why are you making this about gender?

[upaloopa]

12. Because people have always attacked Hillary

for being ambitious and wanting power when they never see being ambitious as a negative for men.

[virtualobserver]

14. Well, ambition and a desire for power are a requirement for this particular job

[DanTex]

11. Especially a "calculating" women with power. How unsavory!

[malokvale77]

30. " Especially a "calculating" women with power. How unsavory!"

Like Carly?

[oasis]

4. There is no way the average, well to do person would

put up with all the bullshit being slung at her for so many years.

Hillary should be celebrated for her willingness to serve.

[jeff47]

5. Bill gets about twice as much per speech.

He gets about $400k per speech. So far, the highest claim for her speeches is $225K.

And given the massive boost in their personal fortunes after Bill Clinton left office, claiming there is no possible financial improvement left is quite a stretch.

[DanTex]

7. The highest Hillary's gotten that I've seen is $325.

And Bill is not just a former president, he's also got the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative. W's speaking fees are currently lower than Hillary's.

Her speaking fees will probably go up a little after being president, but not even close to make up for the 4-8 years she will have missed. Particularly considering the age she'll be at the time, she won't be willing to do the same kind of schedule she could do now. If she was in it for the bucks, running for president is the worst thing she could do.

[MindfulOne]

36. We'll never know if they'll go up because she'll never become president.

It's just not possible, too much baggage, can't win the GE.

[ellisonz]

50. Hillary can't win the GE?

[edgineered]

8. In some careers, such as politics, purchasing, etc,

pet projects of the past, present, and future can continue to pay off. Work done to get a deal with a 10 or 20 year contract isn't forgotten just because the orchestrator of that deal has a different title now. Don't worry yourself about Clinton getting reimbursed.

[immoderate]

10. M E G A L O M A N I A would explain all that. Easy.

But not everything is an accounting problem.

--imm

[murielm99]

13. Is that why Bernie is running?

Or O'Malley?

If you make that claim for one candidate, you should be making it for all of them.

[DanTex]

15. Of course not. Men seeking power is a natural instinct. The man is the hunter. The woman is the

caretaker. Haven't you taken evo-psych?

[immoderate]

18. It does (or would) explain things, doesn't it?

--imm

[restorefreedom]

16. not financial gain at all

power, prestige, and history

[uponit7771]

17. Come now, around here you either have a wingerish hatred towards Hillary or you're 3rd Way!!

[Bucky]

20. Right... cause NO WAY someone could use the presidency to acquire wealth & power

[DanTex]

21. Certainly not Hillary -- she'll lose (a lot of) money by doing it.

The other Dem candidates stand to gain quite a bit of wealth, but I don't think they're in it for the money either.

[Bucky]

22. Sure, look how poor they are today from their collective 12 years in the Executive Branch.

Poor dears can barely scrape enough quarters together to do their laundry.

[DanTex]

23. Quite the opposite, she's rich, and draws huge amounts of money on the speaking circuit.

If she becomes president, that all goes on pause. The other Dem candidates, on the other hand...

[Bucky]

24. No one is saying she's not capable of delayed gratification

Hell, I'm not even saying she's corrupt. My point is that, for all the years they've served, the Clintons have made out like bandits. They're loaded. They don't need the money. They won't be harmed by turning the spigot off for 4 or 8 years. Heck, I seriously doubt Mister Clinton would actually quit accumulating dollars and power for his laudable Clinton Foundation efforts, even if he does become First Husband of the United States. They've done some good with all that power. But power and cronyism go hand in hand--it's human nature. This is why the Framers supported rotation in office.

Your argument that they'd be actually giving up any sort of real power or wealth by serving another term or two is just dreadfully naive about how power, formal and informal, operates in the world today. Your argument is either shallow or disingenuous.

[DanTex]

26. It's not a question of delayed. She simply won't be able to earn enough money to

make up for the lost time. Unlike the rest of the Dem candidates, becoming POTUS is a financial loser for Hillary. She's already loaded, she already makes huge amounts for speaking. The rest of them are small time. If you're looking for a financial motive, you've got the whole thing backwards.

Bernie for example. The guy's been earning a congressional salary for 25 years and still has credit card debt and a modest net worth. Not so great a personal finance. So imagine what even 4 years of presidency could do to his bottom line. Dramatic.

[PoliticAverse]

25. So you're saying after 8-years of a Hillary Presidency she and Bill will be broke? n/t

[DanTex]

27. No, they'd be rich, just not as rich as they would be after 8 years of non-presidency.

If you're looking at people who would really benefit financially from the presidency, the other Democratic candidates are prime choices.

[Bucky]

28. I hope you understand how insipid your "noblesse oblige" argument sounds

Oh, she's so noble for offering to live on the mere table scraps of a president's salary for a term or two. Jeeze, a smart cookie like Clinton wouldn't make such a shallow & clueless argument. I don't think her supporters should bother either. Good day, sir.



I said, "Good Day!"

[DanTex]

29. Who said anything about "noblesse oblige"? I'm just rebutting the truly insipid claim that

Hillary is somehow doing this for financial gain.

[daleanime]

31. That weird, I've never heard that complain about Hillary.....

and lord knows I've heard enough complains about Hillary.

[Bernblu]

32. Hillary and Bill do it for Money and Power

I think Hillary and Bill have been doing it for money and power since they began. Bill also wants fame and to be liked. They tell themselves and everyone that they are doing to help society but the compromises that they made with "the powers that be" show that their primary intention is to help themselves. They are not uncommon in this as most contemporary politicians have the similar motivations. Hillary and Bill are more relentless than most and that is one of the keys to their success and one reason why Hillary is unpopular among non-Democrats.

Bernie is different. Bernie is an idealist who wants power to do the most good for the greatest number of people. He will not back down and change his ideals and principles, even if it means losing. That is why he freely admits to being a Democratic Socialist. He is a most admirable man in his steadfast belief in his ideals and principles.

The question is whether the country is ready for him and (the political revolution he is offering) and whether the people who would benefit most can see beyond politics as usual and back him. In either case he is offering the possibility for real change. We are at the tipping point and it can go either way.

[DanTex]

33. Welcome to DU. And of course "Bernie is different".

He's pure as the driven snow. When it rains, it's because he's sad. He sailed around the world and discovered a short-cut. He is...

[Uncle Joe]

34. Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. The metaphorical view sets a metaphysical ground to the dilemma. To better understand its metaphorical meaning, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

An equivalent situation arises in engineering and science known as circular reference, in which a parameter is required to calculate that parameter itself. Examples are Van der Waals equation and the Colebrook equation[citation needed].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg

Thanks for the thread, DanTex.

[jeff47]

35. The egg.

What laid that egg? The direct ancestor of the chicken, which did not share the exact same mutations as the egg she was laying, thus giving arise to the new species.

Once we figured out evolution, "chicken or the egg" became a very easy question to answer.

[Uncle Joe]

46. That's not an answer to the cultural question.

Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. The metaphorical view sets a metaphysical ground to the dilemma. To better understand its metaphorical meaning, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

An equivalent situation arises in engineering and science known as circular reference, in which a parameter is required to calculate that parameter itself. Examples are Van der Waals equation and the Colebrook equation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg

[jeff47]

47. Yeah....pedantic technical answer was kinda the point.

But thanks for thinking I'm clueless about incredibly common cultural constructs.

[Uncle Joe]

49. I don't believe you're clueless, jeff. You're a smart man.

[smiley]

37. self-enrichment comes in many forms...

IMO she wants power, plain and simple. Otherwise she would have left Bill the minute she found out he was a cheater.

[ellisonz]

51. People don't reconcile over infidelity?

I think it happens all the time, even if they're more like roommates

[Divernan]

52. Typically, the adulterous partner has the class to keep it on the down low.

Last edited Thu Oct 1, 2015, 06:27 AM - Edit history (1)

You know, out of respect for their husband or wife, and to keep from embarrassing their children, or just a sense of public decorum. The cheated on partner is not repeatedly and publicly betrayed and humiliated, as Hillary has been at the international level.

Hillary's idea of reconciliation? Call Bill's seduction victims names and blame them for his infidelities. Blame Bill's mother for his sex addiction. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2014/07/24/hillary-clinton-blames-bill-mom-for-his-sex-addiction/psBsjfSPAx2ssnYYtDkGbL/story.html

I understand forgiving a husband or wife for the first infidelity and attempting reconciliation. But fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. When an adulterer gets forgiven the second time, he/she knows they are home free. They've married an enabler.

Then there are "open marriages" where both partners are free to engage in extra-marital sex, and there are "swingers" who put joint effort into having lots and lots of sexual partners. But with the Clintons, it has long been a one-sided arrangement.
The Clinton marriage is "sui generis", i.e, one of a kind. Can you name another presidential candidate in history whose spouse had/has committed repeated, numerous public infidelities? And I do understand spouses who put up with such humiliation and psychological abuse (not to mention the agony of having to ask your doc to test you for STDs cause hubby has been screwing around again) because of financial need - but that has never been the case for Hillary, with her Yale law degree and whom Bill used to kid made more money than he did when he was an elected official in Arkansas and she was a partner in a prestigious law firm.

On edit: it just occurred to me that a major reason HRC moved to Arkansas, married and stayed w/Bill is that she had failed the D.C. bar exam, a fact she kept secret for 30 years, but passed the Arkansas exam, so if she'd left Bill, she'd be limited in her employment to Arkansas, UNLESS she'd had the self-confidence to re-take the D.C. bar exam - but that would mean admitting to the public at large, and to her hyper-critical father that she'd failed it the first time. Here's the story on that:

Claim: Hillary Rodham failed her 1973 attempt to pass the Washington, D.C., bar exam.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/barexam.asp#Aht4pVdVEOBM94zb.99
TRUE

[ellisonz]

60. lol

That article you posted is second hand and full of unsubstantiated allegations. Maybe she just really loves him? Are you going to suggest that Hillary is in a sham marriage to advance her career? I'm shocked, truly shocked that couples would try to build careers together. SHOCKED!

What would the headlines be if she divorced him? You're forgetting they have a daughter too. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean you're an expert on what should have been their private business.

[Divernan]

62. Ah, if only Bill had the class to keep it "private business"

Tell me how his notorious behavior benefited his daughter in any way, shape or form. Not only in the immediate, public, excruciating embarrassment, but in providing that type of role model of how a husband is allowed to treat his wife.

[ellisonz]

67. You don't have to forgive Bill to not vilify Hillary...

Forgiving Bill is Hillary's business and really it's the height of arrogance to sit in judgment of her parenting.

You're selling Hillary short on morality when it's not warranted. Chelsea seems to have turned out just fine

[smiley]

55. sure it happens...

Many people do stay in marriages out of convenience. But I believe in this case, Hillary's ambitions would have been sidelined had she dumped Bill. Maybe not the case, but I'd have more respect for her if she left him, at least after he left office.

[ellisonz]

61. That's perhaps true.

Maybe she just loves him though, you're making assumptions about her sense of self-respect. Forgiveness is in short supply in our society, perhaps Hillary should be commended for keeping her family together. This country has too many broken families.

[smiley]

66. perhaps...

but the whole Lewinsky ordeal wasn't the first and only time. Regardless of how I may sound, I do give Hillary huge respect for staying with a man she knew cheated on her multiple times. It takes a very dedicated and focused person to remain loyal in those circumstances. Which is why I believe she stayed mostly because of her long term goal of being the 1st woman president.

I definitely agree with you though. She does set a great example of forgiveness. Something this country is in short supply of.

[ellisonz]

68. Agreed!

I think it's good that her humanity is out front. Hillary perseveres. I think those are great traits in a leader.



P.S. Maybe they just have a really great marriage counselor

[Fearless]

38. TPP, Glass-Steagall, and her corporate donors

Explain those and then we'll talk about who's looking for money.

[jfern]

39. Reality check: if Trump was all about self-enrichment, he would not be running for president.

LOL, good one!

[Logical]

41. +1000 nt

[Logical]

40. Oh FFS are you reaching. No one if falling for this stuff either. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

42. She's NOT in this for financial gain. She's in it for EGO. First Female President size ego.

You fool no one with this kind of misdirection.

[reformist2]

48. And most of her supporters support her just to achieve that goal - it's all so mindless.

At least when we elected Obama the first black president, we did it because he actually stood for something.

Besides getting to pat ourselves on the back for electing the first female president, with Hillary we get nothing but more of the same old, same old.

So no thanks, Hillary, I'll wait for Liz Warren.

[m-lekktor]

43. the self enrichment occurs once she leaves office.nt

[Divernan]

57. Clinton Family Foundation gets enriched while she's in office

Just like the fat "contributions" to it from foreign govts./big corps. while she was Secretary of State. Quid pro quos.

[Luminous Animal]

44. Really. You "hear" over and over again that her campaign if for financial gain? Links please

[reformist2]

53. Well of course she's not after money. She already has like $50 million!

But I guess you could argue she's not like all those other greedy multimillionaires, who all want to become billionaires. So I guess there's that.

[Divernan]

54. Screeching halt of corporate/foreign govt."donations" to Clinton Foundation

the instant she loses this primary, or in the alternative, the general election. If HRC had not been known to be planning a presidential run, the Clinton Foundation would be operating out of a walk-up office in New Jersey. No private jets. No posh international conferences at luxury resorts.

As many millions as quid-pro-quo seeking corporations and foreign governments have given to the Clinton Family Foundation since Bill left office, that would be as nothing to the millions which would flow in if Hillary made it to the Oval Office.

We saw exactly that happen while she was Secretary of State in regard to favorable decisions and actions by the State Department and moneys paid to the Clinton Family Foundation by grateful beneficiaries of said actions.

And of course, the huge speaking fees would never have materialized for Hillary or Bill either.
One hand washes the other, never more so than with the Clintons, their family foundation and whatever political office either of them holds.

[Android3.14]

56. Maybe she should apply a "smoothing coefficient" to her financial graphs

Let's all give this post the thought it deserves.

[SwampG8r]

58. When she is finally

Pried away from politics she loses all her " fundraising " ability
She won't have any more influence to peddle or any more quid for the pro quo
Staying in some job of power is all she has to sell

[Bread and Circus]

63. I call absolute bullshit on this because a lot of the speaking fees for her and bill are 100%...

connected to the fact that foreign governments (not necessarily the good guys either) are giving them both money in order for favors considering they expect her to be president.

Since you are so fond of the predictive markets and like how people "bet" on Hillary, just realize a lot of these crazy speaking fees are literally "bets" for return on favors.

Being President is an absolute self enrichment.

[John Poet]

64. OF COURSE she's not after money. She's after POWER.

The Clintons have plenty of money already. What they don't have is a White House office....

... or any other office...

[DanTex]

65. Everyone running for president wants power, by definition.