Hillary Rodham Clinton, former (annoying) First Lady, former (mediocre but Liberal) Senator from New York State, former (wretched) Secretary of State – announced she and her husband President William J. “Bill” Clinton were ‘broke’ when they left the White House. Which may explain why they attempted to steal all the dinner ware and many other items not permanently attached when they left.
Even for a leftist with a by-nature tenuous hold on reality, Madam Secretary shows an amazing ability to deceive herself about her financial status AND the stupidity of the listening public.
What does it mean to a woman with more money than most of us will ever earn in a lifetime to be ‘broke’? Does that mean she cannot buy a Senate seat without others to pitch in with the purchase price? How does she keep a straight face saying this sort of stuff? Stephen Wright keeps a straight face during his monologues, but everyone involved knows he’s presenting ‘humor’, not absolute fact. The late Buster Keaton was known for his deadpan delivery and acting, but I understand he sometimes laughed on set and had to shoot the same sequence more than once. But not Madam Secretary.
Seriously, folks; can you believe this? She charges – according to the article – “… a six figure speaking fee …” (a minimum of $ 100,000.00 just to be clear) for her speaking engagements. (In comparison, I get about $36,000 a year from my retirement/Social Insecurity payments. I collect guns, support a son in university and I’m mostly comfortable. What the blazes does she do with her money?) But she’s not “… truly well off …” she says. AND she claims her income comes from ‘hard work’. Frankly, I could foul up foreign policy and then lie about it in front of credulous graduates for much less. What’s so ‘hard work’ about being a protected, pampered, ignorant loser?
Oh. She wants to be President of the United States. Does it warm the cockles of your heart knowing she would be a President who identifies with us ‘lesser’ folk?