Posted on 08/10/2016 10:33:18 AM PDT by rktman
The New York Times published a piece Wednesday detailing Bill and Hillary Clinton’s financial struggles in the 1980s — when the couple was making the equivalent of $144,000 today and had a nanny to care for their infant daughter.
In a piece titled “When Her Family Needed Money, Hillary Clinton Faced Stark Choices,” Amy Chozick writes that after Bill Clinton lost the Arkansas governor’s race in 1980, money troubled Hillary. She “worried about saving for Chelsea’s college, caring for her aging parents, and even possibly supporting herself should the marriage or their political dreams dissolve.”
[dcquiz] The couple “stretched their finances to afford” a $112,000 home — the same as buying a $345,000 house today — that was “one of the smallest houses on the block.”
“The sprawling estate of Winthrop Rockefeller, the celebrated former governor, was so close that it practically cast a shadow on the Clintons’ grassy backyard,” the Times bemoans.
Poor babies. Even back then they were spending all their money paying off bimbo eruptions?
WWWWAAAAAAAAA sob, sob, WWWWAAAAAAAAAA NOT!!!
These “journalists” bring the concept of “whore” to a whole new level of sewage.
This is so much tripe.
The Clinton’s have skirted the law for decades, always doing the dirty deal just close enough over the line to not get caught.
Chelsea, that poor thing, lives in a $12 million dollar home.
So much for these pigs.
Another blatant example of the sad state of modern journalism as noted by Tucker Carlson, below:
Tucker Carlson: the Sad State of Modern Journalism
Accuracy in Academia ^ | August 10, 2016 | Alex Nitzberg
Posted on 8/10/2016, 9:02:47 AM by Academiadotorg
Criticizing the state of modern journalism, Tucker Carlson told AIM that journalists’ obsequious behavior, blatant bias and monolithic worldview have compromised the integrity of the nation’s fourth estate.
Carlson, a member of the Fox News team and a veteran journalist who co-founded the Daily Caller, asserts that many journalists bask in the presence of “the powerful” and are “…afraid to challenge anybody in power.”
“That’s kind of exactly the opposite of what you want. I mean the whole reason that journalists have a special kind of place in American society is because they’re entrusted with this job to kind of keep the powerful honest and to speak on behalf of the population and the second they go over to the other side and start sucking up to politicians, for example, is the second they’ve betrayed that charge.”
Questioned about the media’s election coverage Carlson opined, “I don’t think by and large they have been covering it, they’ve been advocating on behalf of one candidate against another.”
He explained that regardless of the election’s outcome, the media’s advocacy has destroyed its claim to objectivity.
Pointing out that a conflict of interest will arise if Trump wins and the largely anti-Trump media must report on his presidency, he said, “ … how are they gonna cover that, the administration? Can they? Haven’t they discredited themselves?”
“By the way,” he continued, “if Hillary wins, same thing. They’ve been working for her election and now they’re in charge of telling us what her administration is doing, can we trust them with that? I don’t think so.”
Condemning the practice of journalists who air their opinions on social media accounts, Carlson noted the corrosive effect this has on the public’s trust as they can easily discover a journalist’s political leanings.
Carlson says that while he values diversity, within the modern field of journalism “ … everybody has the same experience, they’re all from the same world, they all have the same assumptions, they all went to the same schools.”
He described journalism school as an “indoctrination center” that perpetuates the lack of diversity of thought in the media industry.
” … journalism school is just another sameness factory that pumps out people with identical opinions, and by the way, it’s only accessible to a certain kind of person — the exact kind of person we don’t need any more of in journalism — affluent, entitled, activist.”
Carlson believes journalists should seek the truth, “even if it leads them into uncomfortable places and especially if it leads them to places they didn’t expect to arrive … that’s what I thought journalism was, pursuit of what’s true, of accuracy, but not just accuracy, of truth.”
Alex Nitzberg is an intern at the American Journalism Center at Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia. Follow him on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3458320/posts
Both of them had “unencumbered” law licenses at the time. And yet they were making less than $200,000 per year? That sounds like incompetence to me!
“When Her Family Needed Money, Hillary Clinton Faced Stark Choices,” Amy Chozick writes that after Bill Clinton lost the Arkansas governor’s race in 1980, money troubled Hillary. She “worried about saving for Chelsea’s college, caring for her aging parents, and even possibly supporting herself should the marriage or their political dreams dissolve.”
So the obvious solution was to become world class grifters.
Hillary’s suits are Polyester
Wow, so she really had to struggle and work hard to get where she is, unlike her opponent, who was born wealthy and never had to work for anything in his life. She’s one of us. /s
They started their life in an old, cold, rundown tenement slum.
I guess she never had to choose between buying food for her children or paying the electric bill.
Incompetence? Apparently not since on of them has been deemed the most qualified individual in the entire galaxy to ass-u-me the office of (p)resident after the fair and honest ballots are cast in Nov.
And just think…a poor Democrat couple, starting out with nothing but political savvy can go from $144,000/yr. to $100,000,000+ in foreign and domestic banks without making anything useful, but simply by being on the taxpayer dime selling influence to the highest bidder, friend or foe. I’d feel even better about this story if they were both behind bars, where they belong.
*Largely anti-Trump*?
I have not heard one positive take by the media on Trump bar none.
The first news story on the radio driving to work is ALWAYS negative Trump always positive clintoon.
I can see why the low information voter supports cankles.
This is their 2nd attempt at playing the poor card. I think it was back when Hill was Secreatary of State they played it. It didnt take lok for that to be proven wrong...theyre multimillionaires.
LOL. Like the reference to “Love Child” by the Supremes.
Off topic, but can you imagine such a popular song today? The song was about a girl born to a single mom, and how they felt shame. She wanted to please her boyfriend but was afriad of getting pregnant.
Times have changed in the popular culture.
In another thread about this story I remarked about how robbing banks maybe have been a bit more respectable. Anybody here remember the Kim Basinger movie “The Real McCoy”? I was kind of thinking about that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.