Search Box

Sunday, August 14, 2016

All the leftist news that's fit to print, Part II

In case you were wondering how the NY Times was going to cover the subject of Hillary Clinton's rapacious selling of the State Department to donors to the Clinton Foundation, wonder no more.

This past Thursday they ran an article titled Strained Finances Left Clinton Juggling Necessity and Ideals. The story, with its heavy emphasis on the Clintons' early years of marriage, painted a picture of a hard-working woman upon whom the burden of providing for her family fell. Because, you know, her husband, who had his head in the clouds, was not all that financially oriented.

The relevant quotes (with my comments in between):

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Losing the governor’s race here in 1980 so shattered a young Bill Clinton that he could not face his supporters, so he sent his wife around to thank campaign workers instead. He later gathered with close friends for dinner but quietly sulked, playing the country song “I Don’t Know Whether to Kill Myself or Go Bowling” on the jukebox.


But his wife had a more pressing concern: money. The ousted governor needed a job, the family needed a place to live, and moving out of the governor’s mansion meant losing the help they had as they raised their 9-month-old daughter, Chelsea....

(You see, everything Hillary ever did was for her dear little daughter. You certainly can't fault her for that, can you?)

Mr. Clinton was of little use as he fixated on voters’ rejection. And for the first time, friends said, Mrs. Clinton glimpsed fragility in the future she had moved to Arkansas to pursue. She worried about saving for Chelsea’s college, caring for her aging parents, and even possibly supporting herself should the marriage or their political dreams dissolve....

(Oh, and taking care of her aging parents, too. What a devoted daughter!)

At no time did those stresses fall more squarely on Mrs. Clinton’s shoulders than in the difficult two-year period in Arkansas when she and her husband found themselves cast out of office, financially strained and deeply uncertain about the future. And the memory of that time shaped her desire to be free from financial burden.

(Even 34 years later, when as Secretary of State she approved the sale of 20% of North American uranium rights after a $31 million contribution was made to the Clinton Foundation, it was all because of that traumatic memory of not having been rich enough when she was young.)

“Hillary had a couple years of the taste of what it means to be a working mother, without any help, to have to take care of a small baby and care for your job,” said James B. Blair, a close Clinton friend and lawyer who offered Mrs. Clinton investment advice in the 1970s....

(No sirree, nobody ever had it harder than Hillary.)

A generation of Ivy League-educated young people like Mr. Clinton had returned to their home state to make their mark. Money seemed to be all around the Clintons, but they did not have much of their own. And unlike Mrs. Clinton, a worrier by nature, Mr. Clinton, consumed with his dreams of a political career, seemed indifferent to securing a financial future.

“He was never interested in money, ever,” Mr. Blair said. “She is the one who had to be sure Chelsea was going to be able to afford college.”

(Yep, Bill was never much interested in money. That's why after he left office he gave all those speeches at a million a pop, and why most of his buddies were billionaires.)

People close to Mrs. Clinton don’t begrudge her desire to provide generously for her family, and certainly many presidential candidates and public servants acquire vast personal wealth. Asked in an interview whether earlier financial stresses had prompted her to pursue the lucrative speechmaking, Mrs. Clinton said, “I really think it’s much simpler than that,” adding that it is typical for secretaries of state to share their views in speeches after leaving office.

(Yes, you see, it was never about Hillary, it was only about providing for her family. Note that the word "greed" is not used in the article even once. And she didn't give those speeches for money -- no, all she wanted to do was share her views.)

Thrift Store Decor

It was one of the smallest houses on the block in Little Rock's Hillcrest section, and Mrs. Clinton largely bought it with her own money, the month after that devastating 1980 election loss.

(How unpretentious!)

She filled the rooms with mismatched furniture bought at thrift stores and borrowed from her flamboyant mother-in-law. She converted the windowed attic into a bedroom for Chelsea, parked her Oldsmobile Cutlass in the weedy driveway and chased after the family's cocker spaniel, Zeke, who liked to chew through the fence.

(Ol' Hillary, always refurbishin' rooms for her daughter and chasin' after that durn family dog.)

The Clintons had stretched their finances to afford the $112,000 home, which was down the hill from the cit's old-money mansions. The sprawling estate of Winthrop Rockefeller, the celebrated former governor, was so close that it practically cast a shadow on the Clintons' grassy backyard.

Friends described the decor as unsightly, a jarring departure from the governor's mansion.....

(The problem is, once you get a taste for living like royalty....)

A Frugal Father

Growing up in the upper-middle-class suburb of Park Ridge, Ill., Hillary Rodham -- whose mother had been raised in poverty and whose Depression-era father preached frugality -- babysat and held summer jobs beginning when she was 13. Her father, Hugh Rodham, taught his only daughter fiscal responsibility and how to read stock tables in the newspaper. But he was not one to shower his children with material things.

(Well, if your parents are raised in poverty, that's almost the same as you being raised in it.)

"Her mother came from nothing and her father was self-made, so there's always been an awareness of working hard to earn a living," said Lisa Caputo, a friend and former White House aide.

(Message conveyed: Hillary is going to be a very hard-working President?)

There was anxiety, too. The family was never comfortably affluent, and even as Mr. Rodham bought himself a Cadillac, he insisted that his wife and children live modestly. Hillary and her brothers helped at his drapery business, which eventually closed after sales slowed.

By the time she was a student at Wellesley College, Mrs. Clinton and many in her generation were expressing skepticism about the pursuit of money. In her 1969 commencement speech, she denounced materialism and corporate greed. "We're searching for more immediate, ecstatic, and penetrating modes of living," she declared.

(Where did that youthful idealism go? Ah well, immediacy, ecstasy, and penetration can sometimes be expensive.)

When she moved to Fayetteville, Ark, and later married Mr. Clinton in 1975, the Yale Law-educated couple lived happily earning about $18,000 a year each in their positions as professors. But several years later, as Mr. Clinton planned his run for the governor's office and the couple worried about starting a family, Mrs. Clinton grew increasingly uneasy about their incomes and started to think more seriously about how to build a nest egg....

(Like, a really huge one. Dinosaur-sized.)

Does the Times really expect anybody to buy this pap? Do they really think their readers are that dumb? Do they really think they're going to sway anybody's vote by putting this transparently sympathetic spin on Hillary's greed?

Next maybe the Times should write an article about Bernie Madoff's "deprived" upper middle class childhood, and how all he ever wanted to do was provide for his children, his wife, and his parents. It would be equally convincing.  

4 comments:

Pangur said...

The left is generally pushing its luck hard right now, no more so than the media, who are now exposed as the representative of the elite/ACELA class. They really seem to think there will be no consequences.

John Craig said...

Pangur --
They are; and their transparency is actually incredibly insulting to the public at large. Do they really think people won't see through them? They're desperate because Hillary is such an incredibly flawed candidate, on so many fronts. She is only prominent because of her husband (a latter day Lurleen Wallace), was fired from her first job on that Senate committee because she was a pathological liar, a trait that has stayed with her over the years, has a husband who is a rapist whom she enabled, had an undistinguished record as a Senator and accomplished nothing as Secretary of State, made a hash out of national healthcare when given that opportunity, is corrupt, and corrupt to the point where she's actually betrayed her country for money. AND the media is desperate because Trump represents to them the glimmerings of white racial solidarity, their biggest fear.

Anonymous said...

Hope?:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/13/app-maker---trump-win-election/88640044/

The press is having a hysterical fit against Trump. As a source of bitter amusement I pull up the Yahoo news feed almost every day. Typically there are about three over the top attack articles against Trump - the headlines for each story sound like the basis for disqualification of Trump as president. Normally one of the Trump attack articles is the lead story. Never a negative article about Hillary.

If I could advise the Trump campaign, I'd suggest they make a story of the media's unprecedented assault:

“There is an unprecedented media war against me and my campaign. For entertainment, I suggest that everyone look at the Yahoo news feed every day to see the latest attacks against me. Remember: my policies will save the middle class economically, make the US safer, save US blood and treasure on the war front, and offer your children hope for a better future. My policies are a threat to the Left and the super-rich globalists. The unprecedented media assault against me shows the level of fear from the globalists and the Left – my policies are bad for them and good for you”.

But - I also think the media assault is effective on a certain group. An intelligent, politically middle of the road, co-worker of mine seems to be an example. He will come to me with some inane detail the press has come up with to assault Trump and be vexed to the point of saying he just can't vote for him because of it (forget policy, forget the likely result of each candidate's presidency).

I predict Trump will crush Hillary in the debates, and momentum will build in Trump's direction toward the election. Barring election fraud, Trump will win.

- Ed

John Craig said...

Ed --
I sure hope you're right, but I have my doubts. I've always thought that polls are misleading, and that people are reluctant, given the current atmosphere, to admit they intend to vote for Trump. (How ironic that people feel way too bullied to admit they want to vote for the "bully" in the race.) But I think there is a substantial segment of people who don't see through the media, as exemplified by your co-worker.

I also think that there will likely be some fraud in this election, just as there was in the last election. And it will center on the four key swing states: OH, MI, FL, and PA, where it centered last time.

Trump has evidently not spent any of his money yet, so a last minute blitz ought to help. I think the debates will help too. And who knows what Wikileaks has in store for Hillary. The only problem is, scandals on the Left become nonevents in large part because the media refuses to give them much coverage, and people just forget about them. Whatever happened to Fast and Furious, or the IRS scandal? The Obama administration simply stonewalled, and that proved effective. The scandals just faded away. It's been the same with most of the scandals surrounding Hillary. Poof.

Anyway, I hope you're right.