She can relate!
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Clinton reported $20.4 million in income for 2007 and more than $109 million since 2000 as they gave the public the most detailed look at their finances in eight years.
Reader Interactions
89Comments
Comments are closed.
Trackbacks
-
[…] It stings even more because they walked right into it. They are the ones who spent the last month talking about elitism and being out of touch. They are the ones who made the celebrity ads. For a campaign team that has allegedly learned from Clinton’s mistakes in the primary, they must have missed it when Hillary spent weeks calling Obama elitist and attempting to profit on the “bitter” comments, only to have this happen: […]
Incertus
If the idea that because she and her husband have made two boatloads of money in the last 7 years, that she can’t relate to average Americans, that’s silly. Empathy has jack shit to do with one’s ability to rake in the cash. FDR was part of the goddamn elite before he became President and did more than any other President to try to alleviate the suffering of the poor. Same with the Kennedys. Same with any other number of wealthy people who believe in the idea of noblesse oblige. Maybe Clinton doesn’t know what the average person is going through, but this ain’t proof of it.
Brachiator
You beat me to the punch! I referenced this as an aside in another thread.
I love this little juxtaposition from the NY Times story (Clintons Say They Earned $109 Million Since 2000):
I believe it now, when Hillary says she is gonna be working hard if she is elected. They certainly have worked hard for their money….
chopper
funny thing is how much loot they brought in from having bill give speeches. and here i thought “fancy speeches don’t mean much”.
Studly Pantload
Let’s face it: no one running for the highest office in this land is going to be the renter of a modest two-bedroom apt and drive a ’96 Taurus. If the returns don’t seem to point to any funny bizz, I got no problem with their income.
Studly Pantload
I sed:
Actually, for all I know, the above might describe Mike Gravel to a T. What I should have said was, “no one who is considered a serious contender running for the highest office…”
Jen
I think Mike Gravel drives a van with the Dead logo on it in house paint, if his Youtube offerings are any indication.
Just Some Fuckhead
Yeah, but Roosevelt and Kennedy, et al, started with a bunch of money (and fame). See the difference? You gotta be noblesse before you can oblige.
The Clintons, OTOH, got into politics FOR the money and fame. I’m surprised this is controversial.
shortstop
Didn’t they say earlier in the week that they wouldn’t be releasing these for another two weeks? They must be really worried about how Penn’s Colombian exploits will play if they see these returns as a preferable story.
John Cole
The real problem for the Clintons will not be the amount of money, but where the money came from and the fact that they did not release last year’s returns.
Matthews is already babbling about it.
cleek
count me among those who has no problem with their income, so long as it’s all on the up-and-up.
Hypatia
How dare they have money, unlike, say, the Bush family. Neither Clinton was born to riches, or even moderate riches, and unlike, say, Lyndon Johnson they didn’t enrich themselves greatly through high office until they were out of it. As long as there’s no sleaze indicated I don’t see any news here.
Zifnab
Right. I’d be much more interested in who paid them that $109 million than in exactly how far off the median American Income they earn. Bill already proved a kid can go from Arkansas nobody to President. He doesn’t need to move back in with his parents to show he can empathize with the US citizenry.
That said, if Bill and Hill are pulling down millions of dollars from Walmart consulting fees and Bear Sterns speaking tours and Exxon investments, I’d be genuinely interested in hearing this sort of information.
Just Some Fuckhead
I’m pretty sure there is a tiny sliver of swath between renting and making a hundred million dollars with your post-Presidency influence.
That this won’t be scandalous is a jarring testimony to how fucked up this country’s values are.
ThymeZone
Meanwhile, back at the Manipulatron Wurlitzer Model 400, Clinton is out there today telling this maudlin story of herself and the death of MLK.
I dunno, but after “We ran to the cars to avoid sniper fire” I am having a hard time believing anything these terrible people say any more.
I expect to hear how the bullet that killed King just missed her as she threw herself in front of the great man to try and save him.
Oh, that DID happen? As I thought ….
Incertus
Sez who? Bill Gates seems to have plenty of noblesse oblige, and while he didn’t come from poverty, he sure didn’t come from that. Same with Oprah Winfrey–say what you will about her, she’s done a lot of good while making a lot of money. All I’m saying is that one is not a guarantee of the other, like Michael was suggesting with his simple-minded post.
shortstop
Exactly right. And that, one supposes, is what they’re concerned about and why they’ve held off releasing these for as long as possible.
cmorenc
I agree that wealth per se does not negate a person such as HRC from having the proper empathy, and understanding even, of the struggles of people of more modest and hard-pressed means.
However, one does have to wonder how this info will play with some of the blue-collar crowd across Pennsylvania. If it only negatively affects one otherwise HRC-leaning voter in ten, even if only half of those negatively affected change their votes to Obama because of it, this could have a significant impact. The point is, the timing of the tax return info can’t be helpful in a blue-collar state like Pa, even if it only undermines a fraction of her voting base.
Zifnab
Pardon me? Come again? Baking powder?
I doubt the Clintons were off raiding the Arkansas and US Treasuries like Bush and Cheney have been doing, but they didn’t exactly live hand-to-mouth after Clinton became a Governor.
And Bill made a great deal of money on speaking tours and engagements while his wife was a Senator. You can’t completely blow that off.
Incertus
Fixed. I swear, Matthews takes irrational Clinton hatred to a whole new level. He’s the freaking Jackson Pollock of it.
Billy K
True, but of all the candidates, Obama is the closest to actually knowing what it’s like to be an “average American.” The guy is not that far removed from sitting on the City Council.
I happen to like that.
.02
Just Some Fuckhead
Count me as one of the idealist fucks that can’t morally understand how public SERVICE pays that well. It’s either public service or it’s self service.
I don’t hold it against someone who goes into business and makes a hundred million dollars. But going into public service and coming out of it with a hundred million dollars is no different from running one of those charities that pretends to be collecting donations for starving children while enriching themselves.
John Cole
I should probably add that they probably thought they were being clever at Clinton campaign with a Friday document dump, but, as always, they were too clever by a half. The juxtaposition with today’s labor report won’t help matters, either, especially as she is desperately trying to maintain their support among blue collar voters in PA.
jnfr
This is the same bullshit they slung at John Edwards – he has lots of money, he can’t possibly care about working people! It was wrong then, and it’s just as wrong now.
John Cole
It is especially unfortunate when you consider that as far as I have seen, one of the most empathetic voices regarding the plight of working people has been none other than Warren Buffett.
Grand Moff Texan
McCain still sitting on his medical records?
I mean, if you’re going to buy an old piece of shit, you need to know how many wrecks it’s been in.
.
libarbarian
Bullshit!
This has nothing to do with saying rich people can’t care about the poor.
this has everything to do with the fact that a lot of their income comes from companies and interest groups that have vested interests in government policies.
If Walmart pays a candidate a shitload of money it helps to know that when it comes time to judge his behavior with respect to their stance on unions, labor rights, etc.
shortstop
For crying out loud, let’s get real. There’s having money and there’s unbridled fucking greed. The Clintons knew damned well how $109 million in six years would play–that’s why they wanted to wait until she was the candidate to release this–but they couldn’t stop themselves from that outrageous level of influence peddling. They knew we wouldn’t like it, but they thought we’d have to suck it up because she’d be the only viable candidate.
They thought wrong.
Tom Hilton
True. Also, that’s a standard trope for Republicans: rich people who claim to care about poor people are just filthy hypocrites. (Middle-class people who care about poor people are just soft-headed bleeding hearts, and poor people who care about themselves are just losers.)
Ted
Yeah, it is interesting to see him sometimes come out with an op-ed with a bunch of tax figures and basically say, “This is ridiculous, raise my taxes!”
Billy K
So why hasn’t Hillary been self-financing to keep her competitive in the PA media market?
John Cole
Personally, I don’t begrudge them a penny of it.
That being said, releasing the news you made 109 million over the past few years the same day we learn the country lost 80,000 jobs and the day after your key advisor was caught in Columbia crafting trade deals doesn’t seem like really solid thinking, especially while you are chasing after blue collar voters in Pennsylvania.
I live near PA. The only thing that justifies that kind of money in this area, in the minds of voters, is signing Roethlisberger to a ten year contract.
Billy K
I’ve been saying that for years, with two caveats: 1) Do something productive with the money; 2) raise the rich’s taxes as well (for once).
stickler
Well, wait a minute here:
Bill Gates (William Henry Gates III) sure as hell didn’t come from poverty. His father is (was?) part of the family law firm, one of the largest in Seattle. His mother came from a long line of rich bankers, and his mother was on the board of First Interstate Bank.
The Gates clan was part of the West Coast elite before Bill was even born.
Studly Pantload
Skroo Tweety. I’ll be interested in hearing what Rachel Maddow has to say about it on Countdown, tonight, since I know it won’t be unhinged.
Never thought I’d be looking forward to a guest host for
The Great Orange SatanKeith.cleek
from 2000 to 2006 they made $110M. $80M of that was from Bill’s speaking and book sales over that time period. and he’s a private citizen now, remember – this isn’t govt money. it’s a shitload, but if people think he’s worth it… well, good for him.
that leaves $4.3M/year from whatever else. and that is a lot, but it’s not unbelievable.
Jen
gigolo-ing?
Brachiator
I don’t have a problem with it either.
But again, the Clintons unnecessarily muddied their own waters by delaying releasing their returns, saying that it really wasn’t necessary, because after all, they had already been vetted. In addition, they also demanded that the Obamas release even earlier years’ returns, which led some conservative goons to the easy speculation that the Obamas had been tied up with some shady Chicago deals, and deftly deflecting attention from the fact that the Clinton’s had not released their returns.
And as John notes, Friday information dumps are typically the first refuge of scoundrels, who seek to take advantage of the news cycle.
It is also entirely reasonable that they have not released their 2007 returns because they need to file an extension. But it is also very convenient, since it is possible that we will not know anything about that year’s return until after the election.
On the other hand, it is clear that at least as far as money matters are concerned, McCain is his wife’s bitch:
MBunge
“it’s a shitload, but if people think he’s worth it… well, good for him.”
The problem is that people think he’s worth it because he used to be President. It’s in the same vein as Cheney being a relative nobody when he went into politics, but he somehow magically became worthy of being a corporate bigwig making assloads of money after a couple decades in elective and appointed political positions.
Even if you don’t do anything untoward to get it, the fact that people start making 10 times as much money and more after public service as they did before it is a little unseemly.
Mike
Just Some Fuckhead
You did. You tried to suggest the Clintons were engaging in noblesse oblige. I’m telling you they weren’t noblesse.
Dave_Violence
I have no problem with anyone pulling in this kind of money. …just don’t begrudge me – or anyone else – who make as much, or less – a lot less. Don’t begrudge people who work hard who want to keep their money, either.
shortstop
Exactly (although in the Clintons’ case, isn’t it more like 100 times more?). It’s not that they don’t have the right to legally earn whatever they can. But we also have the right to question their judgment, priorities and values based on those decisions. And with one of them seeking the White House, the question of whether there are quid pro quos implied in all this cash is not exactly outlandish speculation.
Brachiator
Not too much on the oblige either.
Conservative blowhards and others will have fun parsing the Clinton’s charitable giving. A comparison (although obviously incomplete) from the NY Times story:
PeterJ
Good idea.
zzyzx
It looks like this might be typical Clinton 2008. Have something that might be a minor issue? Well the best way of getting rid of that is to make sure that you turn it into a major issue.
If the only damning information in there is the salaries, why not release this months ago?
PeterJ
I’m wondering the same about the fact that McCain still hasn’t released his medical records. If there isn’t anything problematic, then why hasn’t he released them yet?
Unless he’s sitting on them to deflect the first major attack on him for being old. That would be the only reason.
“I’m old, but I’m in really/somewhat good shape”
That or there really is something damaging in it.
Too late for the GOP to pick someone else though…
Brachiator
Yep. The Friday document dump has pushed Mark Penn off the main news pages. A guest poster on andrew sullivan’s site is having fun just using Bill Clinton’s own words against him. And people wonder why there is a fall-off in the Clinton love.
And of course, the linkage of Obama’s rep with the Canadians on NAFTA was a big lie, designed to misdirect people from some Clinton activities in this area.
The “Mr Penn goes to Colombia” stuff is just amazing. Even more amazing is how brazen the Clintons continue to be in attempting to point the fingers at others while going all “Who, me?” with straight faces.
Steve M
Personally, I’m more interested in the Clinton Library donor list, which Bill Clinton refuses to release. Wonder why?
Xenos
Whatever the motivation, and whatever the source, it is an awfully impressive amount to put together in less than a decade.
Makes W., with his string of failed businesses, and the paltry market for his memoirs, look like quite the piker.
Incertus
I did nothing of the sort. I suggested that the simple-minded post was just that–simple-minded. There isn’t a one to one connection between the idea that a person who makes a lot of money is necessarily out of touch with the average wage earner, and I provided examples. If someone wants to make a real argument that the Clinton’s are out of touch with the average wage earner, I’ll not only listen, I might agree. But that argument wasn’t made here, and frankly, you haven’t made it either.
zzyzx
I’m trying to think of something here. Since WY voted, what have been positive news stories for Clinton – not negative ones for Obama, mind you so Wright doesn’t count. I can think of Murtha and a few friends endorsing. There were some good polls I guess. That’s been about it though.
She backed out with Wright and when she came back in, it’s been all negative.
AkaDad
The Clintons actually need the money, especially if you consider how expensive Kevlar pantsuits are.
mere mortal
This thread shows another side of the irrational Clinton hatred.
Not only are they class interlopers (look at those Beverly Hillbillies and their new money), they are also class traitors, advocating for the poor and working class.
“They listed $10.25 million in charitable contributions during that period.” The nerve of some people.
Why couldn’t they do it the way conservatives like Richard Cheney do it, by stepping back and forth from business to government, using his position in the latter to enrich the former? To the victors go the spoils and all that.
Giving speeches to people who are willing to pay to hear him? How gauche.
And the one shred of information we don’t currently have access to? Why there must be something incriminating in there. There just must be, it’s the Clintons we’re talking about here.
Now, if it were Reagan getting paid millions to speak… Oh wait:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022202189.html
John S.
Uh-huh. This is some real hatin’:
John may be a hater, but he’s fucking spot on.
HyperIon
yes, and check back with me after he’s been an ex-president for 7 years. i don’t see how Obama now is much different from Bill Clinton in 1992 wrt being average….except that Clinton was poorer growing up.
and i’d like to hear more about the charitable contributions. the mention above is the first for me.
kwAwk
Plain and simply this primary boils down to this. You have the rich Harvard educated lawyer, battling with the rich Yale educated lawyer for a chance to replace the rich Harvard and Yale educated MBA in the White House.
Just Some Fuckhead
Yes, the virtue of having a lot of money far outweighs any possible vice in having acquired it. Of course, I’m not suggesting any vice more serious than Bill Clinton’s new career: capitalizing on his Presidency.
Just Some Fuckhead
We already have a Democratic former President with which to compare Bill Clinton: Jimmy Carter. Last time I checked, Jimmy Carter was building homes for poor folks and working for human rights around the world. He also won a Nobel prize if I remember correctly.
Or we can compare him to Al Gore, who has been working tirelessly to combat global warming. He’s also made a wad of cash making good business decisions, like investing in Google. Seem to recall he won a Nobel prize also.
OTOH, Bill Clinton has spent seven years simply capitalizing on his Presidency, giving speeches to wealthy corporations and organizations around the world for obscene amounts of money. Bill Clinton thanks the voters of the Democratic party, many of them poor and disadvantaged, who voted for him for years by taking the money and running. By lining his own pockets at the expense of actually taking a stand for justice and rightness the last seven years.
The only thing we can be absolutely sure of is a second Clinton presidency will make them even wealthier while our modest social goals get sacrificed again. I’m just flabbergasted that any real Democrat can support these folks.
NickM
Do people really make $109 million in 7 years just by talking a lot? I’m sorry – from what I’ve seen, if someone’s paying you hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars, you’re giving them something of equal value in return. Is hearing Bill speak for 45 minutes actually worth 100s of thousands to anyone? It’s like paying for manure that you can get by the bucketload for free. The corporations and associations paying them — and I assume that’s where most of the money is coming from — are getting something real back, like access. The Clintons remember their friends, apparently.
Dennis - SGMM
I’m waiting until people who know have had a chance to look at all of the documents. I’ll be interested to see how Bill Clinton’s connections to InfoUSA and Ben Burkle’s Yucaipa Companies fit into the picture.
John Cole
I have come to the conclusion they are just not very competent, but boy do they value their loyalty.
Sound familiar?
Dennis - SGMM
Clinton could have released the tax returns at the very beginning of the campaign, dealt with any resulting stinks and then gone on with the issue slowly fading away. Instead, she held off until the perception was created that she must be hiding something – whether she is or not. Now, while she’s fighting for the survival of her candidacy she has to release the returns and any negative aspects of them will be front and center when she least needs another controversy. Seems like poor tactics and worse judgment. If you have a skeleton in your closet, trot it out immediately, let everyone who wishes to rattle the bones and then move on.
Snail
One reason I can come up with for delaying the release of these returns is that it is probably much harder to convince people to give money to your campaign when they can see that you’re already rolling in cash. “They made $20 million last year? I don’t think they really need my 100 bucks.”
Dennis - SGMM
That is a poser, especially in view of the fact that even the entire 109 mil would be insufficient to self-finance. This leads me to ask why it’s necessary to spend the GNP of a couple of small countries on one election. Most of us here like to go on about how much money is being wasted on weapons but this seems like pretty conspicuous consumption as well. How long will it be before candidates are raising and spending a billion? Two billion?
John Cole
Not to go all glibertarian on you, but elections cost so much precisely because so much is at stake. Don’t like the costs of elections, decrease the size and scope of the federal government. People are willing to spend that much because they stakes really are that high.
The Sanity Inspector
Dennis - SGMM
If I understand you correctly, they’re spending that much money to buy the influence that being at the head of a massive government gets you. If so then there’s a built-in driver for ever more massive government because that results in ever more influence. I’m not a libertarian but the just seems wrong to me.
Dennis - SGMM
I’m not a libertarian but that just seems wrong to me.
TenguPhule
Another Edition of Michael D Doesn’t Know What the Fuck He’s Talking About.
Conservatively Liberal
I think you might have something here. One thought that crossed my mind is if Hillary really stands a chance of winning, as her supporters believe, then why should she not ‘loan’ her campaign some more cash? I mean, if she really thinks she is going to win, why not toss some more of her own cash into the kitty?
Her supporters may get upset if they think Hillary is holding back from doing everything she can to win. If her donors are maxed out, then her and Bill’s cash is the only financing available to her. I thought of this scenario shortly after hearing how much her and Bill make.
I am sure that some of her supporters are going to start talking about it too.
John Cole
Yes on all three accounts, but that is where we are right now.
Nancy Irving
Unlike the Bushes, the Clintons have not always been wealthy.
empty
Giving ten percent of your income to charity seems pretty noblesse to me.
Dennis - SGMM
Then it will take a cataclysmic event to change things. Anything short of that and the government inevitably devours the nation it governs.
p.lukasiak
more sexist crap.
“They” didn’t make the money. “He” did. And of course, there isn’t a single instance where anyone can show that Bill Clinton gave a speech for money, and Hillary Clinton changed her vote on a piece of legislation.
But because being sexist scum is okay when it comes to Hillary Clinton, have at it. Those of us who support heve a mind of our own that hasn’t been clouded with fifteen years of Hillary-hate know that people like you can’t think for themselves.
At least there are a few Obama supporters who realize just how much total bullshit this is. The rest of you misogynistic scumbags can kiss my hairy, pimpled ass.
Just Some Fuckhead
Christ on the cross. I hope you’re being glib.
Studly Pantload
John, do you really believe that people will suddenly decide to have a less vested interest in their country and how their lives are lived in it and what sort of opportunity they can have for themselves and their heirs simply by reducing the size of the federal government? Maybe I’m just a crazy ol’ hippy, but I don’t see it that way. This shit will still matter to folks.
Here’s what I like about Obama’s fundraising (which harkens back to Dean’s ’04 run): Small donations from people who feel that $5 and $10 and $50 donations are investments in a people-oriented style of governing. Go with that, or put before the people the solid opportunity to use taxes to publically finance elections and (hopefully – hey, one can dream, right?) reduce corporate cash influence.
I don’t think *what* an election costs bothers people (more or less) so long as they feel they have an equal investment in it with their fellow citizens.
Not that some reduction in govt size is automatically some sort of bad thing. But using that as a way to try to reduce the budget of elections seems to me not only like trying to put the cart before the horse, but then trying to get the horse to walk backwards.
Karmakin
Yeah I have to disagree with that as well. The size of government has nothing to do with the expenditures for campaigns. Even if just for the prestige alone (see:President of the Galaxy, one Zaphod Beeblebrox), campaigns would be a big deal.
And even that isn’t really a bad thing, especially now that we’re coming into the age of the sub-100 dollar donar. Campaign Finance reform may have had its place, but I think that we’re going down a different road now.
Barbar
I thought speeches didn’t put food on the table.
The Other Steve
Hillary is the kind of guy you can have a beer with.
empty
No, I wasn’t. Were you just being a fuckhead?
Just Some Fuckhead
I guess it all depends on the meaning of the word noblesse.
Tax Analyst
Yes.
But if you were sexist you would say, “Hillary is the kind of woman I’d let serve me a beer”, unless of course, you wouldn’t for some reason, like if you were afraid she’d Vince Foster-ize you.
So what kind of beer would you like to have (or have served to you by) with Hillary?
Bottle or can?
Chilled glass or direct from the bottle/can?
chug-a-lug or sip?
Pretzels, anyone?
Wanna watch some sports? Uh-oh…nope, she’s gotta get back to work. Gotta be ready when that 3am phone call happens. Hey, maybe Bill can come in and spend some “quality time” with you, knock down a few brews and watch a ballgame or two. Oops, uh-uh, no, no-can-do…he’s tied down in the kitchen, fixin’ supper and doin’ household chores. Bein’ First Lady can be a bitch sometimes, even for a dude.
Well, that was fun, come again when you can stay longer, OK?
mere mortal
Just Some Fuckhead Says:
Well yes, unless you count the William Clinton Foundation, which works to make HIV/AIDS treatment more affordable and promote anti AIDS programs around the world.
And unless you count The Clinton Global Initiative, which “attempts to address world problems such as global public health, poverty alleviation and religious and ethnic conflict.”
And unless you count the Clinton Foundation Climate Change Initiative, which works to encourage and distribute green technology in large cities.
And unless you count his work with George H W Bush to raise money for relief from one of the worst natural disasters ever, the 2004 earthquake and tsunami in the Indian Ocean.
But, of course you won’t count any of that, because the hatred of Clinton prevents you from being a rational person. I see that a lot.
mrmobi
I’m saying this as a devoted Obama supporter. You are full of shit on this. Do you give 10% of your income to charity. No? How about over 10 million dollars? No? Then shut the fuck up, ok?
I’m a real democrat who will vote for Hillary, if she should win, no matter how she does it. I guess you’ll vote for McCain if Hillary wins, right? Who’s the real democrat, in that case?
Birdzilla
And she like her husnad are both tax and spend liberal demacrooks
mere mortal
Yes, thank goodness we had those demacrooks out of office for the last 7 years so we could put our country’s finances back in order.
Idiot.
Just Some Fuckhead
From the New York Times:
Mr. Clinton last year earned $6.3 million from “Giving,” a book on philanthropy, and reported giving $1 million of that to charity. In the book, Mr. Clinton espouses his own formula for charitable donations, recommending that people give away 5 percent of their income to charitable causes. “If giving by the wealthiest Americans even approached these levels,” he wrote, “I’m convinced it would spark an enormous outpouring of contributions from Americans of more modest means.”
The pace of the Clintons’ own charitable giving, which peaked last year at $3 million, has not always kept up with their income, and by at least one measure, has sometimes fallen short of the spirit of the 5 percent goal, which is to get money into the hands of charities that do good works.
In 2002, for instance, they reported income totaling $9.5 million and $115,000 in gifts to charity. In other years, they have given much larger amounts to their family foundation, but it has yet to disburse all of the money.
The Clintons took a tax deduction in 2004 for $2.5 million in charitable gifts, $2 million of which went to their family foundation, which as a tax-exempt nonprofit is considered a charity under the tax code. That same year, the foundation gave away just $221,000 to charitable groups, according to its tax return.
Robert in BA
Please understand what the media is saying with this dope about the Clintons and about Edwards.
You have to be rich to have a chance to be President, and the media tell you the rich can’t represent the poor. Ergo, the poor are not entitled to representation.
That’s our media for you.