According to The International Herald Tribune,Hillary’s most recent (August 19, 2007) assessment: Over 600 days.
How much of it came from her book sales?
It doesn’t make a difference to me either way, but “up to” is not “over.”
Now that is a puzzler. I would imagine the Republicans will make some hay with that in the general election. How does a public servant amass that much money?
I’d vote for her (Clinton), I’d vote for Obama, I’d vote for a Clintion/Obama ticket. I voted for Gore and would do so again. In MY mind, it would be a vote for new faces, and a change in direction. I wouldn’t be too worried about “How does a public servant amass that much money?”. After all, we could ask THAT question of an awful LOT of people regardless of their party affiliations. Any politician who raises the question had best be ready to have his/her own finanances examined too. I’m more interested in who will do the best thing for the country or barring that, who will do the least damage.
I seem to remember that they weren’t worth a whole lot when Bill left office, but it’s not hard to imagine Bill earning several million a year in consulting and speaking fees. They’ve both had some big-selling books along the way as well, so I’m sure that didn’t hurt.
A couple of reasons -[ul][li]It showed up the hypocrisy of someone who claimed to be concerned with the common man “Ah feel yore pain” and all that - who then immediately fired the head of the Travel Office in order to channel the business to one of his rich Hollywood cronies, and [*]who felt the need to drum up some criminal charges to cover up the fact that it came about at the request of “HRC”. The criminal charges fell thru, of course - the jury acquitted practically without leaving the box - but the innocent victim of Hilary’s desire to enrich her friends at the expense of whoever got in her way was bankrupted by the process. [/ul][/li]
No, I suspect the mere fact that Hilary earned most of the money would not have stopped her from the various sleaze she tended to step in from time to time. Her and Bill’s big problem was that they took it for granted that they would be given a pass in Washington the way they did in the one-party town where Bill did his whoring. Didn’t work out that way, which is probably behind Hilary’s paranoid rants about the vast right-wing conspiracy.
It seems Hilary’s distancing herself from the lying sleazeball to which she is allegedly married is keeping her from most of the later scandals. Even stealing the furniture from the White House does not seem to have stuck to her skirts, nor the pardons her brother helped to arrange.
Regards,
Shodan
Correct. She got $8 million for her book.
What you need to remember is, this is a perfectly acceptable deal for a politician to accept. Unless it is a Republican.
Regards,
Shodan
I have been given to understand that Bill gets a hefty chunk for after dinner speaking. 
Hell, Newt got paid for writing 1945, when he more properly ought to have been indicted! My dog can write better than that, and he’s drunk half the time!
Hillary’s book took off after Hannity claimed it centered on her experiences at Wellesley and was chock-a-block with steamy lesbian-Maoist sex scenes. And she never even thanked him!
And the left wing has demonized GWB. It’s part of party polarization propaganda, making you hate the other guy so much you’ll never want to cross party lines. Perhaps the GOP started it but the Dems are continuing it with glee and gusto.
And if you add in she’s a woman, then she has got to be the Antichrist. :rolleyes:
I had no interest in the book to begin with and steamy lesbian-Maoist sex scenes would only make it worse. Seriously, who wants to think about Hillary Clinton naked?
“Maoist”? What the hell is that, they all wear the same olive drab lingerie?
Oh, bullshit. We think he’d make a great Commissioner of Baseball.
What we hate is what he’s done to our country, not to mention a couple of others.
Since ‘hate’ in and of itself isn’t measurable, here’s a proposed metric: if you ever want to get into a pissing match about which side has called for the deaths of more of the other side, I’ve got a bunch of cites. From talking about stringing up journalists and Supreme Court justices, to fantasizing about seeing San Francisco nuked, the right wing is way out in front.
I’m honestly curious… I can understand the “ITS MY MONEY, YOU CAN’T HAVE IT!” attitude. I disagree with it, but I can at least understand it. But why aren’t these same people who decry government waste saying ANYTHING about the hundreds of billions we’ve thrown away on Iraq? Why is stealing peoples money and spending it on the military a better option than using it for universal healthcare?
Because it is protecting business interests-oil companies-rather than giving money away to those stupid poor people who are not smart enough to be wealthy.
Not by -spoke’s reckoning – and he is on record. And I thought he was the most smearable of 2004 candidates.
Look, we can count on the Republican smear machine to go into overdrive. But so far, it’s my impression that the Obama campaign handles challenges quickly and more to the point with an understanding of the underlying subtext.
I agree with that, and there’s an advantage to being able to go nowhere but up. I expect that her swing support will firm up. But I see no reason why we shouldn’t go with a stronger candidate, since all the Democratic frontrunners have a serious approach to public policy.
With that in mind, I might note Obama’s surprisingly strong showing among conservatives and swing voters. Perhaps they perceive that he will give them a fair shake.
I don’t think the Republicans will necessarily be able to raise the same war chest this cycle as they have in years past for several reasons. First, I think a lot of wavering centrists are are weary of Republican rule. Secondly, the Republican slate of candidates offers no inspirational choices. Thirdly, Republicans have a nomination battle this year, and a lot of available donation money is going into that race. Some donors may be tapped out by the time the general election rolls around.
Nominating Hillary helps the Republcans by saving them money. They don’t have to try to demonize her from scratch-- she comes pre-demonized, with negative ratings in the high 40s.
A Hillary nomination also helps the Republicans by motivating their base, so much so that they will donate more money to defeat her. Hillary has been an effective fund-raising tool for the Republicans for years now.
Nominate Hillary, and watch Republican coffers fill. Nominate Obama or Edwards or Richardson, and…eh, not so much.
:eek: What, based on his track record with the Texas Rangers?!
I smell a research grant! 