Hillary Clinton

Hillary's Wealth Is Her Greatest Achievement

In Clinton's career, money is the only metric that features any success.

|

Clinton Global Initiative/Facebook

It's simply mystifying that so many Americans look to candidates who pretend to be just like them. We're the worst. In the rare instance I am moved to vote, the least I expect is for a candidate to be far more successful than I am.

This last hurdle is not particularly challenging, mind you. Which brings me to Hillary Clinton, whose clumsy efforts to convince America that she's a commoner not only are transparently silly but intentionally discount her most impressive gift: the ability to persuade rational people to pony up $200,000 (The Wall Street Journal says she was paid $300,000 for a speech at UCLA) to hear her talk about a career in politics. One thing's for sure: Those students would benefit far more from a talk about the inner workings of Clinton Inc.'s multimillion-dollar business than they will sitting through an hour of platitudes about public service.

If I had to pick a reason to vote for Hillary, it would be her wealth. She should own it. It's her greatest success. Through her speaking engagements and terrible ghostwritten books, she is worth somewhere between $25 million and $50 million. Bill's net worth is at least $80 million. Even combined, that's nothing like the Koch brothers' money—or even John Kerry's or Mitt Romney's money, as The Washington Post helpfully pointed out recently. (One thing wealthy folks don't understand is that the average American doesn't really make much of a distinction between $130 million and $1 billion anyway. You're just really rich. And it's OK.)

Nearly every candidate tries to create intimacy with the common man's struggles. Populists like to argue that the rich are incapable of comprehending the problems ordinary Americans face or of having empathy for the poor. This accusation is selectively deployed, of course. The Senate is teeming with affluent Democrats who are given a pass on their bank accounts because, as someone once explained to me, wealthy liberals advocate raising taxes on themselves and are therefore selfless. That means, conveniently enough, wealthy conservatives can always be dismissed as having ideas that are self-serving.

But the problem with Hillary isn't that she's wealthy. It's not even that she became wealthy asking for exorbitant fees while most Americans were living through a brutal recession. Nor is it that, for the most part, she has lived a privileged life under the protection of taxpayers for decades and still acts as if she's broke. It's that today she has nothing to offer voters but a reconstituted Obama-style populist progressivism that doesn't fit her history. She may well win, of course. But that would have more to do with the luck of history than it would her political skill.

Certainly, Hillary is more gifted at making money than she was at being first lady, a stint for her that featured a disastrous stab at health care policy and her husband's being tricked into having an affair by a shadowy conspiracy. She is undoubtedly a better businesswoman than she was a senator, as the single consequential vote she made turned out, in her own words, to be "a mistake." And she is a far better businesswoman than she was a secretary of state, a job for her that doesn't seem to feature any achievements worth remembering by anyone.

Chelsea Clinton philosophized recently that although she had wanted to see whether she could "care about (money) on some fundamental level," she couldn't. "That wasn't the metric of success that I wanted in my life," she explained. Though few people in the world want the sole metric of their life's triumph to be money, only someone with the security of a wealthy family, augmented by a $600,000 yearly paycheck, could dismiss the idea of money so flippantly. But she was right in another way. In the case of her mother's career, wealth is the only metric that features any success.

NEXT: Tonight on The Independents: Revenge of the Nerds! How Super-Geeks Have Remade Culture, Sports, Technology, and Government

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Certainly, Hillary is more gifted at making money than she was at being first lady…She is undoubtedly a better businesswoman than she was a senator

    Dave, what are you smoking man? Clinton is most certainly not a “businesswoman.” Her wealth comes exclusively from political graft. That’s not “business” as it were.

    1. That’s not “business” as it were.”

      But it is “business as usual” for her and her ilk, regardless of party affiliation.

      She, like most career politicians would change party affiliations and “convictions” in a minute if it advanced her position.

      1. “She, like most career politicians would change party affiliations and “convictions” in a minute if it advanced her position.”

        You mean if her political views ‘evolved’. Come on, get with the current double-speak!

    2. she was never “first lady” she was co-president, don’t you remember ” Buy one get one free”

      And if so (god I wish it were so) she has used up all of her eligibility to be a “president”

  2. her husband’s being tricked into having an affair by a shadowy conspiracy

    What’s this now? Was Monica on the Koch payroll or something?

    1. Mr. Harsanyi–Mint is right. As far as I know, this is an original and a substantial claim that needs substantial evidence. I noticed that none were offered.

      I thought Reason’s blog was better than this. Guess not.

      1. I’m voting for sarcasm on that one.

    2. which affair – there have been so many over the years

      and when they are separated (Bill and Hilary) for 3-6 months at a time do you really think that Bill is keeping celebate and faithful to her all the time? REALLY???

    3. Damnit, has David let the cat out of the bag?

      1. See; Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

    4. No. Monica was secretly injected with Koch produced advanced self replicating nano bots that internally constructed a neural transceiver so as to make her wirelessly obey Koch directives. Including slobbing Bubba’s nob.

      1. That’s the best explanation yet I have heard for her obviously awful choice in men.

  3. I’m sorry, but what business is Hillary making money from?

    If you mean her speaking and writing, that’s cronyism, hard stop, not business. Its political allies stuffing her pockets because of her political stroke. Which, to add insult to injury, is entirely due to her marriage to Bill.

    1. Yes. My comment above states the same thing. I was expecting many more similar comments, and then strident apologies from Buttplug and Tony, but nothing. Must be sqrlz.

      1. There you go, Duke.

        Tony is here to defend asset-stripping hundreds of thousands of dollars from universities for 45 minutes of platitudes.

    2. The market value of a Hillary speech or book royalty is what it is.

      1. ‘The *crony* value of a Hillary speech or book royalty is what it is”

        Fixed, dipshit.

        1. Oh fuck you. You defend all manner of ill-gotten wealth if it’s in Republican hands. The market has spoken.

          1. I for one, defend no wealth procured from extortion. That includes the category of people you apparently think are anatomically different enough from the rest of us to justify a different set of moral rules for them. Hilary’s been a good plunderer though.

            1. I fail to see where the extortion is in book royalties and speaking fees.

              1. Tony|7.11.14 @ 5:45PM|#
                “I fail to see where the extortion is in book royalties and speaking fees.”

                Yeah, asshole, your reading comprehension issues always come up where you can ‘misunderstand’ don’t they.
                The book was written about her history of extorting money. And jam it up your ass.

              2. Yeah because nobody ever hid a payoff in speaking fees, or helped promote a book because it’s author helped them out with other people’s money.

                “I fail to see”, yeah Tony, I’m getting that.

                1. I fail to see mindless partisan allegations with no facts or logic supporting them?

                  1. So there are no facts or logic supporting the thesis that Hilary has ‘earned’ her wealth on the back of the state?

          2. Tony|7.11.14 @ 5:34PM|#
            “Oh fuck you. You defend all manner of ill-gotten wealth if it’s in Republican hands. The market has spoken.”

            No, asshole, I never have.
            Go ahead, search the archives. Have a ball. Not once.

          3. And you only defend it if it’s in the hands of your Politburo masters. How pathetic that your entire life’s aspirations are to be a servile cog for trash like the Clinton’s.

      2. there is no “market” in what you speak – it is a public University meaning a socialist institution run by the state. The government doesn’t participate in the “market” only extorts money from it to pay socialist government workers and plutocrats like Hilary who have never done a honest days labor in her post college career.

      3. Honestly Tony I don’t get you. Why defend that cunt ? For a long time, she was opposed to cocksucker’s like you, paying the state a “Fee” to be recognized as a couple, with another cocksucker.

      4. The market value of a Hillary speech or book royalty is what it is.

        Yeah, so was the market value of a Beanie Baby, but investors still ended up with a bag of beans. In Hillary’s case you end up with a bag of bullshit.

    3. political payoffs disguised as “speaking fees” and “book advances”

  4. lol what a pompous windbag lol.

    http://www.AnonToolz.tk

    1. They’re becoming more human.

  5. Graft, insider trading, donations, and being paid to speak about failures as triumphs is hardly something from which to draw pride or cite as the way we wish we were.

    1. It’s Tony, what do you expect.

  6. If political access is a “service” in the “product or service” sense, then i guess could maybe be considered a business…

    Define “business”…

  7. It’s not bad that Mitt Romney is grotesquely wealthy, it’s just that his politics are about shitting on “the 47%,” generally people simply unfortunate enough not to have been George Romney’s offspring.

    It’s not about Republicans being selfish, it’s that all of their ideas are fucking dumb and bad and proven concretely to be so, and they transparently serve the single purpose of transferring wealth from those lazy mooching poors and middle classers to people like Mitt Romney.

    The hypocrites are those of you who suddenly find reasons to nitpick people’s wealth because of their liberal politics. Being a wealthy liberal is indicative only of an ability to empathize with nonwealthy human beings. Being a wealthy conservative is generally indicative that your daddy was wealthy too and you’re sitting on a pathological sense of entitlement and narcissism.

    1. The hypocrites are those of you who suddenly find reasons to nitpick people’s wealth because of their liberal politics.

      We don’t bitch about people’s wealth because of their politics. There are scads of wealthy people with lefty/prog politics, and we don’t complain about their wealth.

      The ones we bitch about are the ones who made their money BECAUSE OF their politics, specifically, their access to political power.

      See the difference?

      1. No. No it doesn’t see. At all.

      2. Just not any of the Republicans who do the same.

    2. You’re a goddamn mental gymnast. How you’ve managed to boil your entire worldview down to TEAM EDWARD! vs TEAM JACOB! bullshit is nothing short of astounding.

    3. A. Romney earned his money through business and hard work and gave away all of his inherited wealth. The Clintons made their money though shady realestate deals that screwed investors, cattle futures trading that was insider trading and political payoffs disguised as speaking fees and book advancesfor books they really didn’t write.

      B. as far as I know Romney is not running for president so lets stick to the subject at hand which is Hilary’s complete lack of accomplishments other than covering up her husbands numerous affairs

    4. jealous of Romney’s wealth and success and your obvious lack thereof. Perhaps if you weren’t a lonely insignificant piss-ant still living in your mama’s basement you would learn to admire people like Romney who became successful by hard work(he gave away all of his inherited wealth) instead of worshiping government plutocrats who get their money from political payoffs like book deals and speaking fees.

      1. Romney was born to money and has never known anything else. The Clintons worked from nothing. If you want to bother to make such distinctions, don’t pick Mr. Romney to defend. Christ.

        1. Bill Clinton came out of poverty. Hillary did not. Her family were successful business owners and upper middle class. So no, Hillary has never been poor.

          Romney gave away his entire inheritance and went into business on his own. He was vastly successful.

    5. So Romney is grotesquely wealthy? He is worth roughly $250 million. Evil Marxist Nazi sympathizer prog lord George Soros had a net worth of around $23 BILLION in 2013 (According to Forbes). Nearly 100 times Mitt Romney.

      Soros has earned a big chunk of that creating genuine human misery by collapsing various currencies. He has criminal convictions for doing so.

      But he has the right politics, so you will give him a pass.

  8. Hillary Clinton’s method of money making is not anything I wish to be a part of.

    Pre-emptive extortion isn’t something that should be applauded as a talent. There is no iota of capitalism involved in that transaction. That is nothing more than prepaid cronyism.

    Tony how old were you when you Father abandoned you/your family ?

  9. Certainly, Hillary is more gifted at making money

    No, not really.

    “Any grafter can make money.”
    “James, you ought to discover some day that words have an exact meaning.”

  10. Lets go to the record.

    How was Hillary at making money before her husband ascended to the White House? Not so great, you say?

    And after? Whooo, bay-bay. That’s when she started making some bank.

    Hillary with no access to power = no money.

    Hillary with access to power = stacks of money.

    Notice what changes? Maybe that’s the real source of the money.

    1. Exactly that MM. Also, to respond to Tony, Hillary is only being paid by universities (mix of public and private funds most likely) because of her status. As a politician. She has never started her own business nor hired her own employees. The taxpayer paid for all her staff. So she’s a sociopath, good for her. But I won’t praise her for it.

    2. You forget that The Hillary was a world renown cattle futures trader before she moved into the White House.

      She took $1,000 and with no prior experience turned it into $100,000 in a short period of time.

      Now that is trading genius.

      1. Heck, the Kochs and Waltons purchased the SCOTUS for not much more than that.

        1. Considering that Roberts reclassified Obamacare as a tax I’m afraid your assertion is bullshit.

          1. Realize that craig is an ignorant lefty, so his posts are either lefty lies or stupidity.
            If he happens to get something right, it is purely accidental.

        2. You know, there is a profoundly simple way to reduce the pull that money has on politics…

          1. … limit the capacity for politicians to grant rents.

        3. last time I checked at least half of the Supreme court Justices were appointed by Democrats. So your claims are very baseless

        4. Wow mendacious bullshit from a complete ignoramus.

    3. “How was Hillary at making money before her husband ascended to the White House? Not so great, you say?”
      Well when he was governor she was pretty good. Not as great as she was later but better than 99% of the people whose job it is to pick cattle futures, full time. So it’s like someone who has never trained as a lion tamer being better than 99% of the lion tamers, even though she only puts in a few hours a week with the lions.

  11. A woman dedicates her entire like to law, women’s and children’s rights – attempts to get health care for all, works as Sec. of State and in the Senate – highly praised by both sides of the aisle.

    THEN, the guys (Reason, Kochs) who pray at the altar of money and materialism……say that all she cares about is money???

    Wow, this place is becoming Science Fiction.

    1. A woman dedicates her entire like to law, women’s and children’s rights – attempts to get health care for all, works as Sec. of State and in the Senate – highly praised by both sides of the aisle.

      Jesus, that’s some weapons-grade TEAM cocksucking right there, even for a twatwaffle like you.

      She dedicated her entire life to women’s and children’s rights precisely how, by being a hanger-on and rank political opportunist?

      1. Between Craig and Tony, I’m having a hard time figuring out which one of them is the sloppy bottom.

    2. craiginmass|7.11.14 @ 6:54PM

      “A woman dedicates her entire like to law, women’s and children’s rights – attempts to get health care for all, works as Sec. of State and in the Senate – highly praised by both sides of the aisle.”

      Please enlighten us with a list (however short) of actual accomplishments in this woman’s long life of sacrifice to the common good.

      1. …”actual accomplishments”…
        None.
        She just claims she’s for all that stuff and ignoramuses lap it UP!

        1. The real accomplishment is in the “claiming”. Being “for” stuff that causes the claimant no real time or effort is enough to achieve the required moral standing among the BODY.

        2. So, being head of the Childrens’ Defense Fund doesn’t count?
          Do your own reading. She’s quite accomplished, including being on the BOD of your buddies the Waltons, where she changed a lot of stuff for the better!

          “Along with Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, she was a force behind the passage of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents could not provide them with health coverage, and conducted outreach efforts on behalf of enrolling children in the program once it became law.[144] She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare.[145] She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.[48] The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome”

    3. “THEN, the guys (Reason, Kochs) who pray at the altar of money and materialism……say that all she cares about is money???”

      The intent around here has to do with ethics.
      I realize lefty slimeballs prefer to lie about that, but there it is.

      1. No one is more materialistic than the progtard. It obsesses about other’s wealth and property. Always seeking to steal more and more. Trying to fill a black void where a heart would be in a true human. But never able to satisfy its monstrous soulless hunger for what others have produced.

        Should there be a progtard in your midst, destroy it. Before other of its kind gather in numbers and make your lands desolate.

    4. Actually all she cares about is political power. With that you don’t need money and you are more powerful than the rich. The government can destroy the rich and has plenty of times. Through taxation and regulation it destroyed the wealth of the Rockefellers and the rest of the so called robber barrons and will do the same to the wealth of the rich in silicone valley.

      but the rich who are politically connected will always get whatever they want like the Kennedys and now the Clintons.
      That is what she wants and is willing to destroy anyone and everyone to get it including the country if necessary.

      1. Through taxation and regulation it destroyed the wealth of the Rockefellers and the rest of the so called robber barrons and will do the same to the wealth of the rich in silicone valley.

        Hear that, ladies? Better get those fake tits soon, before the surgeons go out of business!

  12. I’d like to believe that the schools and organizations shelling out for Clinton’s fee do so to purchase future influence when Hillary completes her ascent to Mt. Olympus, but I suspect it has more to do with her being the flavor of the month in the incestuous-lefty speaking circuit. The Democrats don’t have a lot of retired big-name celebrities who can fill this particular role, but everyone knows who Hillary is, so she can be plugged into virtually any occasion while yielding social cachet among one’s progressive buddies.

    She’s the rich fascist’s version of a celebrity clown you’d hire for your child’s birthday party.

    1. Hey Barney Frank.

      Where ya been ?

      Haven’t seen you much lately.

      1. probably running his gay brothel out of his house again. Got to do something to keep busy and happy

    2. Eva Peron perhaps?!?

    3. Actually it’s more about demonstrating that they will be grateful to future corporatist politicians who are as corrupt as she is. By doing so they demonstrate that even if they can’t bribe them directly now without running afoul of public perceptions, they will do so later. It’s basically bribing the next President in advance.

  13. GMATFF|7.11.14 @ 5:30PM|#
    “Graft, insider trading, donations, and being paid to speak about failures as triumphs is hardly something from which to draw pride or cite as the way we wish we were.”

    She almost lost the gold in coat-tail riding in the Lewinski portion of the course, but given her lack of integrity, she persevered and is now covered with slime!

  14. Wrong. A person of normal means will share more in common with the majority. It’s called democracy.

    1. Great, another incoherent statist dimwit.

      1. @ unperson. Yeah… Democracy was such a great form of government. /sarc

    2. Wrong. Its called socialism.

  15. you mean her ONLY achievement. Her greatest skill is in self promotion. If she weren’t married to Bill an exPresident she would be nothing more than another corrupt self serving lawyer who probably would be in jail or disbarred by now

    But because she got to be “Co President” with Bill now she has a political career.

    Actually when you come to think of it she probably was more of the president than Bill was. He was too busy trying to screw anything and everything in Washington to do much as a President and she was happy with the arrangement as long as she got the power and his affairs didn’t embarrass her or decrease her power base.

    Definitely someone i would want as president 😉

    1. Yes, her greatest achievement was marrying a slimy glad-hander and acquiring his charisma by proxy since she has none of her own.

      1. I have a feeling she won’t win because she doesn’t have Bills charisma or charm. Also the country is fed up with the effects of socialism on the standard of living in the country. People vote with their wallets and for the past 8+ years the socialist agenda has reduced incomes increased unemployment and underemployment.
        Meanwhile, inflation has driven up prices due to higher fuel costs and the larger national debt.
        Wait until the effects of obamacare take full effect.
        Hillary and the democrats are squarely to blame for this and will be electorally toxic this fall and in 2016

        1. …”People vote with their wallets and for the past 8+ years the socialist agenda has reduced incomes increased unemployment and underemployment.”…

          You and I both know that, but team blue is claiming it is the result of BUUUUUUUUSH and ‘deregulation’.
          And according to this ( https://reason.com/poll/2014/07…..ial-survey )
          the voters are buying that line of bullshit.
          And then we have Tony, turd and craig commenting here to show there is some validity to the presumption of gross stupidity.

          1. to be perfectly honest it is partially GWB’s fault. However by comparason to BHO fault it is minimal. Bush did nothing to prevent the housing bubble which was caused by market interference by Freddy and Fanny/ If it weren’t for those government agencies guaranteeing loans that never should have been written. then the bottom wouldn’t have dropped out in 2007. Bush could have prevented this but didn’t by tightening up the regulations and eliminating the loan guarantees but didn’t have the political courage to do it.

            the ball has been in BHO’s hands since 2008 so the blame for our current economic situation rests squarely on his shoulders regardless of what he inherited from Bush

            1. Are you aware that Bush had someone ( don’t remember who) go before Congress and try to get them to pull the plug on the housing bubble long before it melted down.

              Here is Barney Franks reply to the Bush administration’s effort.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6coIcgdgF5U

              1. Then a few years later he blames Republians and brags that there are new rules in place to keep lenders from loaning money to those who can’t repay !!

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQVKiOwTKCo

    2. Were she not married to Bill she might well be serving a sentence for murder as well.

    3. Oh, I think Rand Paul puts her to complete shame when it comes to self promotion…

      Heck, Rand started his own medical “club” to approve himself as a doctor! He’s done absolutely nothing except being a populist, yet y’all suck his….well, you know.

      If we compare the “doer” ratio of Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton – Hillary more in one year than Rand will every do in his entire lifetime…to help actual people in need.

      But I have to remember this place is backward bizzarro world. Everything is the complete opposite of Reality. Rand Paul is accomplished and has real experience in all facets of life, business, politics and decision making…and Hillary is bad bad bad bad who did nothing!

      You guys are funny. No one, except yourselves, can take you seriously.

  16. I briefly got into it with a very stupid woman on Facebook (friend of a friend, not mine) claiming the Clintons are part of her family, over the issue of Chelsea’s $75k speaking fee, saying “they give it to charity” and calling my issues with it “unfounded.” I just told this woman I’m not obligated to respect what she said (or her for saying it), and clicked “stop notifications,” as there are times when you just know you’d be wasting energy explaining yourself. I think it most certainly is the public’s business how the Clintons operate, and little details like Chelsea’s seven-figure wedding to the son of a guy who still owes $9.4m restitution to those he defrauded, should not be overlooked. I’ll tell anyone, if your company, or an organization you belong to, invites any of the Clintons to speak at whatever function, you should quit immediately, because they obviously aren’t using that money to make your own life any better.

  17. saying “they give it to charity”

    Yeah. The foundation that they run, and that funds their activities.

  18. “Chelsea Clinton……….augmented by a $600,000 yearly paycheck….”

    WTF? Can someone clarify this for me?

    1. That’s right, and so far she’s averaged $26k per minute of airtime. You just know Brian Williams has an opinion about that, even if he isn’t telling.

      1. A cunt getting paid that much based on whose cunt she was pulled.

  19. Mildly OT, but I thought at the time that Chelsea Clinton should have interned for Monica Lewinsky’s father.

  20. Yassir Arafat died a billionaire. Does that make his life worth anything?

    1. Good point OldOllie. One has to wonder how Arafat got all that money and from whom. Hamas and the Palestinian Authority receive millions of dollars every year, and yet the Arabs living in their enclave are poor. That doesn’t make any sense. If the two above mentioned political groups are receiving funding from various groups, then one must ask the question, “Where is all this money going?”

      1. And Gaza is such a ghetto that Egypt has refused to take it back.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.