EDITORIAL: Lack Of Ethics Of Hillary Rodham Clinton

17

The City-County Observer wish to preface this editorial with the disclosure that it is not to be construed as an endorsement for any other presidential candidates in either the primary or general election. It is meant only to convey our concerns about the lack of ethics of the candidate who is the subject of this editorial, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

We have been stunned by the hypocrisy displayed by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as it relates to her defense of the $625,000 fee she received for a speech given by her by the Wall Street firm, Goldman Sachs. Her first reaction to questions about why she accepted more money for a one-hour speech than some Americans earn in their entire working lives was very telling. Her reply to the question was a rather exasperated, “Well, that’s what they offered!”  She apparently would have accepted a million dollars or more with a clear conscience if it had been offered. That reaction sends an elitist message to people who are working two jobs to just scrape by, to displaced workers who lost their homes in the Great Recession, and to Seniors Citizens who are now forced to choose between paying for utilities or needed medicine.

We find it hard to believe that Secretary Clinton is genuinely surprised to see that her acceptance of such a huge speaking fee raises questions about where her loyalties would lie if she were President after she accepted the $625,000 speaking fee from Goldman Sachs a one hour speech.

While saying such a thing was politically unwise, we think it is only the tip of the iceberg when we examine the former Secretary of State’s financial history.  According to Mrs. Clinton’s most recent book she left the White House, “broke.”   She claimed  they were $5 million in debt, when they left the White House because of legal expenses they incurred during Bill Clinton’s presidency?  We also find it extremely interesting that the $1.7 million house in Chappaqua, NY. the Clinton’s live in was generously financed for them by their friend, Terry MacAiliffe, who is now the governor of Virginia.

It is amusing to see the Clinton campaign’s flustered attempts to change the conversation from her speaking fees and some of the questions about the riches accumulated by her husband not-for-profit foundation to other issues. She has now trotted out former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to attempt to shame women into supporting her just because she is a woman. We doubt that doing that is going to turn the tide in her favor, and it seems that she fails to recognize the hypocrisy of that argument, as well. Gender loyalty should not enter into the decision to vote for the person that a voter chooses to lead this country.

It was expected that the primary election would amount to a “coronation” and she would be meeting Jeb Bush in the general election. Such a match-up would have made big donors a non-issue, as both candidates would have them in equal amounts. The reality is very different from what it was expected to be, so now she is very justifiably on the defensive on this issue, and not handling it at all well.

Finally,  we wonder how much Hillary campaign committee have received for helping with the Bill Clintons multi-million not-for-profit charitable Foundation?  Our guess is that she has received many million of dollars over the years for helping this Foundation.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

17 COMMENTS

  1. Are ex-Presidents excluded from making income after they leave office?
    Just a start:
    1. The Center for Public Integrity estimates George W. Bush has made $30 million from speeches since leaving office.
    2. POLITICO reports former President George W. Bush makes between $100,000 and $175,000 for every speech he gives and that he has given at least 200 speeches since leaving office in 2009.

    • Hillary isn’t an ex-president, and Laura Bush isn’t running for president. I think the editorial pointed out that the speaking fees would not be an issue against Jeb Bush. I think it is an issue in this primary.

    • How come your clip cut her off in mid-sentence Joe?

      It couldn’t be because the clip maker could care less about finding out what went wrong and making sure it didn’t happen again instead of making a political point out of a terrible situation could it?

      Since this article is about money in politics, here’s an article about the guy who was asking her the questions that led to your clip;

      http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/ron-johnson-ducks-tpm-questions-on-his-10-million-payday-its-a-private-company.php?ref=fpblg

      I also saw where he took in around $400,000 dollars from the Securities & Investment industry, whatever that means.

      Sanders is obviously the only honest person running this year and Kasich has taken $0 dollars from outside anonymous groups which makes him run a close second on the honesty scale.

      A trifecta of either Party is a disaster for the country with the latest example being in 2000 but everyone has to a price for their mistakes and that includes countries….

      • I agree that Sanders is the most honest of the bunch, and Kasich is a close second. I don’t think Kasich has a real chance at the nomination, and sees himself as running for VP.

      • Whoops, I just saw where he has taken outside money but nothing compared to a lot of the others.

        Since he was over the budget in congress when the short but sweet surplus popped up, I’d say he is still a pretty honest amigo….

        • Who are you talking about being “over” the budget? Bernie? Never has a Democrat controlled Congress balanced the budget (and only Congress can set and control a budget) in nearly 50 years, much less have a surplus. The last surpluses were by a Republican controlled Congress while Bill was president.

          You can have your own spin, but you can only have real facts.

          • Are you stupid?

            I bet you are the only one who will frequent this thread that didn’t realize it was Kasich I was talking about being “over” the budget when we had the last surplus.

            And when you create surpluses you make enemies from all different directions. That’s why I said Kasich is the second most honest candidate in the race.

            Always got to create something out of nothing don’t you disinfected?….

  3. The Hildebeast owes the voters a better explanation for her speaking fees. Especially the one from Goldman Sachs for three speeches. The next explanation they come with needs to ring true rather than peal like a pat and contrived press release from a massive, untouchable banking house. I doubt there is anything too alarming in the text of the speeches but her continued refusal to up the transcripts is suspicious. If the Clintons don’t want to address this in any more depth, perhaps they’ll go to DEFCON 1 and put a Barbara Bush wig on Chelsea’s new baby and trot it out in the arms of The Beast. Damage control doesn’t get much better than that.

    While we’re at it, the focus shouldn’t be solely on Hillary. The laughable cast running as Republicans should be forced on record as to what they think about taking huge speaking fees, essentially given money, from powerful corporations for not doing anything of substance. What do they think about taking money, under whatever pretense, from a company whose bottom line they can affect?

    To state the obvious, there is a lot of jealously and politics involved in this. Not much was said about it until it became clear she’ll likely be the next president. Where are all the hardscrabble self-proclaimed bootstrappers who generally can’t wait to jump to the defense of the unconscionable CEO compensations ?

  4. She’s probably going to win the nomination and I think she will win in November. I would vote for her over any of the nuts that the Republicans are putting up. She won’t make things any worse and they would.

    • Well, she has been in charge of disaster control for decades covering for her philandering significant other. Interesting, though, that you prefer a woman who has consistently berated other women Bill has sexually harassed (and worse) over other candidates running.

      • The only decent candidate you have is Kasich, and I don’t see him getting nominated. I want to see Sanders get the Demo nomination.

      • You should call yourself “infected.” It sounds like your mind is infected with hate for democrats.

        • Just those politicians, mostly Democrats, who use their position to harass and abuse women. According to Laura, one such Dem sits on the city council, but you don’t like them being called out about their abusiveness?

          Interesting.

  5. Do any of you people know if the new appointee on the redevelopment commission Dave Clark had anything to do with Talon mortgage company?

Comments are closed.