Government & Politics

Hillary's 'Hard Choices' Make Her Unfit for Command

Clinton's book tour isn't really making the case she wants.

Jun. 10, 2014

Hillary Clinton kicked off a book tour for “Hard Choices” Monday, timed to set up her possible presidential run in 2016. She says she’ll make that “hard choice” by the end of the year. The book is a review of her time as Barack Obama’s first secretary of state, all without really laying out much in the way of principles. But that’s the Clinton way – public persona over all. In reality, her book and her tour vividly illustrate why she’s unfit for command.

As part of her tour, Clinton gave an interview with ABC’s Dianne Sawyer, who surprisingly asked a few tough questions that clearly made Clinton squirm. For example, Sawyer wanted to know why the Clintons earn so much money for every speech – reportedly $200,000 per appearance for Hillary, and as much as $750,000 for Bill. Clinton’s response was that she and Bill know what it’s like to struggle to make ends meet. “[W]e came out of the White House not only dead broke but in debt,” she lamented. “We had no money when we got there and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education – you know, it was not easy.” Maybe if they had just one multi-million-dollar house, Chelsea’s education might have been more feasible. But then again, Hillary had to buy a home in New York in order to run for Senate.

Unbelievably, Clinton also complained that they “had to make double the money because of, obviously, taxes.” Those high Clinton tax rates are a real pain, no? Maybe not, as Bill explained in April, “Hillary and I and some of our friends in this audience who live in New York probably pay the highest aggregate tax rates in America, and I thank God every April 15th that I’m able to do it.”

Sawyer also asked, “Do you think Americans will understand [charging] five times the median income in this country for one speech?” Clinton’s answer was pathetic: “Let me put it this way: I thought making speeches for money was a much better thing than getting connected with any one group or company, as so many people who leave public life do.”

According to CNN, the Clintons have done quite well gabbing for gold: “Bill Clinton made more than $9.2 million in speaking fees in 2001 and more than $9.5 million in 2002. They paid off their legal fees by 2004. A CNN analysis of the family’s financial records in early 2013 showed that Bill Clinton had earned $106 million from paid speeches since leaving the presidency behind. In 2012 alone, he earned $17 million in fees.” Hillary has raked in $5 million since leaving her post at the State Department. But boy did they “struggle” to make ends meet.

Hillary also didn’t mention that in December 2000 she received an $8 million advance for her first book, “Living History” – a near record advance. She received $14 million for “Hard Choices.” If that’s “dead broke,” maybe her new book should’ve been titled “Hard Times.”

Hillary later said, “Let me just clarify that I fully appreciate how hard life is for so many Americans today. I want to use the talents and resources I have to make sure people get the same chances.”

Class warfare is one of the Democrats’ favorite sledge hammers, and Clinton wields it as well as any. That’s why they made Mitt Romney’s wealth an issue in 2012. But if Romney’s income is fair game, so is Hillary’s, and she’s clearly stayed out of touch with the average American.

The second facet of her tour and record is, of course, Benghazi. On that horrible incident, her book again blames the YouTube video while she insists, “I will not be part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans. It’s just plain wrong, and it’s unworthy of our great country. Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me.” There would be no dead Americans if Clinton and Obama weren’t playing politics. They managed to undermine U.S. foreign-policy around the world.

Though she admits, “I certainly would give anything on earth if this had not happened,” she’s also steadfast in her own defense, saying the whole kerfuffle is “more of a reason to run” than not to. Performing verbal gymnastics, she added, “I take responsibility, but I was not making security decisions. What I did was give very direct instructions to the people who have the expertise and experience in security. I’m not equipped to sit and look at blueprints, to determine where the blast walls need to be or where the reinforcements need to be. That’s why we hire people who have that expertise.”

Fox News analyst Tucker Carlson rejoined with a paraphrase of what she really said: “I take full personal responsibility for this, which is why the people I hired are at fault.”

Clinton’s book also claimed, “[T]here were Marines stationed at our embassy in Tripoli.” That’s not true – at least not until after the attack in Benghazi. One would think Clinton would be more careful with the details surrounding Benghazi, but perhaps her poor memory is a result of her serious head injury. Or maybe she thought, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” The answer to that question is Clinton’s responsibility. She and her State Department chose to have minimal security in a dangerous nation (Libya) and the results were catastrophic.

In short, whether it’s her hypocritical lifestyle or her dereliction of duty, Hillary Clinton is unfit for higher office and should stick to bilking people for her empty speeches.

Click here to show comments

It's Right. It's Free.