Google+ Followers

Google+ Followers

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Email from Queen Hillary's

Hillary Spokesman: Anti-Hillary Books Should Not ‘Be Allowed’

Former Secretary of State and likely 2016 presidential contender Hillary Clinton has been stoking the flames of her candidacy and recently released her memoirs, “Hard Choices.” While Clinton has been doing the media circuit to promote the book, other authors have been working on theirs

Three new books that paint Hillary in an unflattering (and likely honest) light are emerging within the next few months and that fact is troubling Hillary’s spokesman who lashed out at authors and booksellers who dare to question the official narrative as created by Hillary.
In fact, Hillary’s spokesman claims that such the writing of such books “should neither be allowed nor enabled.”
The First Family Detail by Ronald Kessler, set for release next month, will joinClinton, Inc. by the Weekly Standard’s Daniel Halper and Blood Feud by Ed Klein on bookshelves. Yesterday we reported that Clinton, Inc. has shot up the charts and now both Halper and Klein’s books are outselling Hillary Clinton’s recent memoir Hard Choices.
“With Klein, Halper and Kessler, we now have a Hat Trick of despicable actors concocting trashy nonsense,” Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said in an interview with the Washington Examiner. “Their behavior should neither be allowed nor enabled, and legitimate media outlets who know with every fiber of their beings that it is completely made up should not get down in the gutter with them.” 
Woah, woah, woah- Should not be allowed?
This isn’t Stalinist Russia, as much as it might pain some of the more Soviet-minded members of the federal government.
We do not draw distinctions between what is “allowed” and what is not based on the content of the written word.
While the words were not from the mouth of Hillary, Merrill’s opinion is the opinion of the Hillary camp as he is the spokesman. It’s quite telling that the proposed solution by the Hillary camp to criticism is to suppress.
With Obama acting like a dictator and Hillary chomping at the bit to crackdown on challenges to the liberal agenda, America is facing some choppy waters and an uncertain future.

Tea Party Townhall Featuring Sen. Mike Lee: ‘Will There be a Cruz-Lee Ticket in 2016?’

On Tuesday, Utah Senator Mike Lee, recent recipient of the Paul Revere Patriot Award from, joined and The Capitol Hill Show  host Tim Constantine for a TeleTownHall.

Senator Lee answered questions from callers including whether he would consider running for the White House with Texas Senator Ted Cruz, the impact of the push by the Left for a $15 minimum wage on small business owners, and why there has not been a move to impeach Obama. In addition, a caller shared her personal experience with the VA who she blames for the death of our father-in-law.
The WWII veteran was turned away by the VA after going in with medical issues. He was told there was nothing wrong. Two months later, after being transported to a private hospital, it was too late and he passed away from pneumonia that had set into his lungs too much.
In addition, Senator Lee discussed the effort he is leading to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. TPNN reported on the bill being introduced by Senator Lee to repeal it.
The Davis-Bacon Act mandates that federal contractors are paid the “prevailing wage” as usually determined by local unions. While this may sound harmless enough and even a laudable law, the reality of the law produces artificially inflated wages and drives up the costs of projects being paid for by taxpayers.
The law creates an opportunity for special interests like labor unions to line their pockets at the expense of taxpayers by inflating the mandated wages for employees. It also requires frequent reporting by federal contractors which contributes to overhead and further inflates the cost passed on to taxpayers.
The full town hall with Senator Mike Lee, sponsored by,  can be viewed below.

‘We Did Not Make This Decision Lightly’: U.S. Embassy Personnel Flee ‘Freewheeling Militia Violence’ in Libya

The Associated Press reported Saturday morning that the U.S. embassy in Libya has been shut down and evacuated due to violence between rival militias.

According to the AP, the State Department said embassy staffers departed Tripoli on Saturday and trekked on land to neighboring Tunisia.
The US embassy in Tripoli during a flag-raising ceremony on May 13, 2009. Mahmud Turkia/AFP/Getty Images
“The U.S. together with other countries have decided that because of the freewheeling militia violence that is taking place particularly around the embassy… it presents a real risk to our personnel,” Secretary of State John Kerry said of the decision, according to NBC News.
Kerry also noted that embassy activities were suspended, not ended, and State Department Spokeswoman Marie Harf said, “We are currently exploring options for a permanent return to Tripoli as soon as the security situation on the ground improves.”
She added, “We did not make this decision lightly.”
NBC reported that a caravan of 158 Americans, including 80 armed Marines, were guarded from above by two F-16 fighter jets and multiple drones as they drove west towards Tunisia early Saturday.
This story has been updated.

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Darth Vader Polling Higher Than Every Potential 2016 Candidate

A poll released yesterday on the blog FiveThirtyEight shows that Star Wars villain Darth Vader is currently polling at a higher favorability rating than any of the potential candidates for the 2016 presidential election. Additionally, Jar Jar Binks, the near universally-despised character from Episodes I, II, and III, has a higher favorability rating than many high-profile members of Congress as well as "Congress" as a whole.
On the other hand, with a net favorability of -8, Jar Jar is considerably more popular than the U.S. Congress, which currently enjoys a net favorability rating of -65. In fact, the last time congressional net favorability was above that was February 2005. Incidentally this was just before the release date of "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith," which marked Jar Jar's last appearance on the big screen.
None of the 2016 hopefuls is polling higher than Darth Vader. You'll recall that Vader chopped off his son's arm and blew up an entire planet, but evidently in the eyes of the American public these are minor sins compared to Benghazi, Bridgegate and Gov. Rick Perry's hipster glasses. These numbers suggest that if "Star Wars" were real and Darth Vader decided to enter the 2016 presidential race, he'd be the immediate front-runner.
The chart compiled by Washington Post comparing favorability rankings between the fictional characters of the Star Wars universe and the real-life "characters" of Congress is pretty jaw-dropping, yet somewhat amusing:
This shows how cynical Americans have become towards mainstream politicians. Americans, at least those polled, are just not enthusiastic about...really anyone, apparently - unless they happen to live in a galaxy far, far away.

Saturday, July 19, 2014

Elizabeth Warren and her '11 Commandments of Progressivism Many are dumping Hillary for Warren. It could be the battle of the sexless in 2016?

Crazy leftists want Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to run for president in 2016. She’s described as a “liberal superstar.” Many are dumping Hillary for Warren. It could be the battle of the sexless in 2016. What were the people of Massachusetts thinking? She's not only a plague on Massachusetts, but she's a plague on the nation since she has a vote.

Speaking at Netroots Nation, a convention for liberal bloggers and activists, Elizabeth Warren outlined her “11 Commandments of Progressivism.” My brief commentary follows:

1. We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it.

There is no single entity called Wall Street. What we really need are stronger rules and tougher enforcement on Washington that bails out faltering companies and banks. Washington spends money it does not have. Elected officials like Warren steal from the working class so they can give it to non-workers who will continue to vote to keep politicians like Warren power. There is an unhealthy relationship between government and business that only the free market can fix.

2. We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.
Actually, Progressives don’t believe in science or they wouldn’t support same-sex sexuality (the biology and anatomy are all wrong), evolution (something from nothing), and the skewed and manipulated numbers that go into fabricating the crisis of Global Warming, Climate Change, and now Climate Chaos. Furthermore, if Progressives truly believed in science, they would engage critics of Global Warming in debate. Instead, the claim is made that “the debate is over.” Progressives don’t want debate because there’s too much money in a global “crisis” like global warming.

3. We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.
Governments should keep their hands off the internet. Once any type of control is given, there is no end to it. Progressives will end up controlling the oversight committees that make the laws and turn the internet into a State-run media congolmerate. Those supporting net neutrality tell us that it would not be directed by the government; that it would make the internet more free and open. Don’t you believe it. If a liberal like Elizabeth Warren is behind it, it must be a bad idea for freedom. The internet is doing just fine. Businesses are created every day. The little guy can be up and running in a day. See “Killing Net Neutrality Helps Underdogs Succeed.”

4. We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.
Calls for raising the minimum wage are ongoing. Once again, the government should get out of telling companies what they should pay. They are already burdened with paying the employer’s side of Social Security and Medicare and unemployment compensation tax. This says nothing about insurance, rent, upkeep, training, inventory costs, etc. Raising the minimum wage will force some employers to let employees go because of increased costs. The extra work will be passed on to the more experienced retained employees.

5. We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.

Liberal policies already control the marketplace. Who will define a “livable wage”? The government will. There will be no end to what a livable wage might include: a certain size house; so much for food each month; a clothing allowance; paid vacations; transportation; education, birth control, etc. The most inexperienced workers will be shut out because of hiring expenses. The less qualified will find it harder to get a job. Teen unemployment will rise. “[M]inimum-wage legislation discriminates against teenage black males. This has been known by economists since at least the mid-1950s. The statistical evidence on this was overwhelming.” Walter Williams argues: “‘How does someone who is part of a group that is discriminated against find a way to prove to somebody doing the discriminating that his assessment is incorrect?’ It was really this question: ‘How do undesirables break through the discrimination against them?’”

6. We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.

Entitled? Should I be forced to pay for the education of other people? No one forced these people to go into debt. No one has to go to college. There is no requirement that a college education has to be completed in four years. No one is forcing anybody to go to expensive schools. The case could be made that government money and cheap educational loans increas

7. We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.
Who will be made to pay for bankrupt pension programs? Should I be forced to pay? Our government enacted legislation that gave us Social Security and Medicare. They have grown in scope far beyond their initial implementation. Medicare is bankrupt. Warren’s solution is more taxes.

8. We believe — I can't believe I have to say this in 2014 — we believe in equal pay for equal work.
There’s no such thing as “equal work.” All types of factors go into hiring and paying. If employees are not happy with what they are paid, they can (1) start their own business or (2) look for another job. I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014, but it’s no business of the government what an employee is paid.

9. We believe that equal means equal, and that’s true in marriage, it’s true in the workplace, it's true in all of America.
Warren wants “equality” in everything. Forced equality leads to poverty. Equality before the law is the goal, but not equality in everything. There is no such attainable ideal unless we’re talking about Communism. But even with Communism, some people are more equal than others. There already equality in marriage. No one is stopping two people from getting married as long as they are of different sexes. The law has been equally applied. Changing the definition of marriage by claiming that people of the same sex can marry is not equality; it’s insanity.

10. We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.
This is one of her “commandments” that I and millions of others can agree with. The question is, however, what types of “reforms” do Progressives want?

11. And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!
Try owning and running a corporation without people. Corporations are owned by people, whether it’s one person or a group of people. Corporations are people. When Warren and her liberal thugs want to force their economic agenda on a corporation, who pays? People! Did people from Enron and WorldCom go to jail? Berrnie Ebbers of Worldcom was sentenced to twenty-five years in a federal prison. If corporations aren’t people, then why do they pay taxes, and why is Ebbers in prison?

One of the reasons the “corporations aren’t people” argument keeps coming up is because of the intrusive nature of government. Congress passed and the Supreme Court upheld the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Now the government has direct control over healthcare. As a result, for every question about the Act’s applicability and enforcement, the government must decide.

Warren and her ilk want to control every area of life, even unborn children by allowing women to kill them. They want to empower the State to force companies to pay for abortifacients that kill unborn babies. Women have a right to control their bodies, but they should not have the right to kill an unborn body that is not their body.
As has been reported over and over again, Hobby Lobby did not deny any woman anything. Warren wants power to force companies to pay for healthcare that she wants to define.

More could be said on all these topics. Elizabeth Warren is the new face of the Democrat Party.



Americans say that Hillary Clinton is wealthy and has been for some time, and many also think that she doesn't understand the problems faced by the middle class

Hillary Clinton may talk these days about being “dead broke” when her husband left the While House in debt over legal fees, and even now not being one of the “truly well off.” But for seven in ten Americans, that is exactly what she is, according to the latest Economist/YouGov Poll. 
Democrats and Republicans generally agree:  66% of Democrats call Clinton wealthy, as do even more Republicans, 80%.
More Americans accept that Clinton was not wealthy when her husband entered the White House in 1993.  Only a third believe she was wealthy then.  But relatively few would have called her “middle class.”  Three in four put her at least in the upper middle class in 1993. 
Presidential candidates tend to be well-off.  They are either professionals who have earned good salaries, or have inherited wealth, or both.  So it is no surprise that people regard Clinton as wealthy.  But compared to recent Democratic Party nominees, she is the only one that so many think of as wealthy.  However, there are three recent Republican candidates that as many Americans regard as wealthy when they took office as see Clinton that way today -- two Presidents (the Bushes) and one losing nominee (Mitt Romney).  Far fewer think of the Democratic nominees since 1992 and two of the Republican ones (John McCain and Bob Dole) that way.
Somewhat more people viewed Bill Clinton as wealthy in 1993 then say that about Hillary Clinton.  But more interesting is how partisans view the candidates.  There are no differences in the way Democrats and Republicans describe Republican candidates when it comes to their assessments of wealth.  But there are large differences in how partisans look at Democratic nominees.  Differences can be 20 points or more – with more Republicans always describing the Democratic candidates as wealthy. 
Does the perception of a candidate being wealthy hurt them?  In the case of Clinton, the most recent controversy over wealth may have taken a toll.  Her favorable rating has dropped five points in the last week, with much of that drop coming from Democrats, and much of it coming from a drop in their rating of “very favorable.”  Last week 54% of Democrats said their opinion of Clinton was “very favorable,” but this week that has dropped 13 points to 41%.
However, Clinton’s favorable ratings from Democrats are actually higher than they were in February.  Republicans overwhelmingly dislike her: 78% of Republicans are unfavorable, with 62% veryunfavorable. 
With the exception of a very brief period late last year, Clinton’s national favorable ratings have always been larger than her unfavorable ones.  This week favorable ratings are still larger than unfavorable ones, but only barely.  And her very favorable ratings are at their lowest point since 2009.  Whether this drop will be transient or not remains to be seen.
Clinton’s mixed ratings nationally are still better than those for most other potential candidates:  like Clinton, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, Tennessee Senator Rand Paul, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker also get mixed evaluations, though there is a higher percentage of undecideds.  Opinion of all other possible candidates asked about in this poll is more negative than positive. 
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are also viewed negatively. 
Recent comments about Clinton’s wealth may have had more of an impact on the way Americans judge her empathy with ordinary citizens.  Fewer Americans believe Clinton understands the problems facing middle class Americans than say she does.  However, most Democrats say she understands the lives of middle class people.
The least well-off (those with family incomes below $40,000 a year) are somewhat more likely to think Clinton understands the needs of the middle class.  But half of those with family incomes between $40,000 and $100,000, who might consider themselves middle class, say she does not.  Neither do half of those whose family incomes are higher.


Despite this, Clinton continues to benefit from the fact that Democrats think she should run, and most Americans believe that if she did, she would win.  More than two-thirds of Democrats believe she should run, and three-quarters think she will. 
One month ago, more Democrats wanted Clinton to run; but the percentage today is about the same as it was in February.  Overall, the public is divided on whether she should run, and the percentages of Republicans and independents saying that they want her to has changed little this year.  Most Americans believe she will enter the race. 
And if she does, most people say she is at least somewhat likely to win.   Majorities of Democrats and independents think that, as do more than a third of Republicans.  Of course, Clinton also appeared invincible before her 2008 primary losses to Barack Obama. 
Image: Getty
Economist/YouGov poll archives can be found here.

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Here's How Hillary Clinton Restricts the Press ...

Hillary Clinton's contract for a 2013 speech at the University of Buffalo — for which she was paid $275,000 — came with a number of limits on press access.

A copy of the contract was released by the school Wednesday. Among other restrictions, the contract required no press presence at the event reception and no opportunities for members of the media to hear from Clinton apart from her speech and a moderated question-and-answer segment immediately afterward.
"The reception prior to the speech will be closed to the news-media," the contract said. "The Sponsor will work with Agency to coordinate the organization and setup for the news-media during the speech and moderated Q&A portion of the event. There will be no other media opportunities or availabilities (i.e., press conferences, statements, etc.)."

Furthermore, the university was required to seek approval from Clinton's speaking agency before inviting any members of the media as guests.

"Should the sponsor seek to invite any members of the media as guests, the Sponsor shall provide the Agency with such guests' affiliation with the Sponsor and receive the Agency's agreement in advance of such invitations," the contract continued.

Clinton's contract also prohibited any recording of her comments whatsoever.

Hillary Clinton Tells Jon Stewart America Is ‘Not Perfect’ But Has a ‘Great Story’ — and Tackles Now-Infamous ‘Dead Broke’ Flub

Hillary Clinton appeared on “The Daily Show” Tuesday evening, telling host Jon Stewart that her comments about being “dead broke” when she and President Bill Clinton left the White House were simply “an inartful use of words.”
“That was an in artful use of words, obviously,” she told Stewart, repeating a description she’s used before. “You know, Bill and I have worked really hard. We’ve been successful and I’m very grateful for that.”
Rather than keep the focus on her controversial economic statements, though, Clinton shifted the discussion to American opportunity, noting that she’s afraid young people today won’t have the same ability to achieve success that she and her family have enjoyed.
Hillary Clinton and Jon Stewart Discuss Politics, Presidential Aspirations and More
Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reacts to host Jon Stewart during a taping of “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” Tuesday, July 15, 2014, in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II)
“I think a lot of people don’t believe it exists for them anymore,” she said of the path to success. ”People don’t feel it and I think we have to change both our economic and our political system so that we can make it a reality again.”
While much of the interview was serious in nature, Stewart joked with Clinton about a possible 2016 campaign, at one point proclaiming, “I think I speak for everybody when I say, ‘No one cares’ — they just want to know if you’re running for president.”
Clinton, who avoided offering a direct response, laughed and joked right along.
“You know Jon, I was going to make an announcement, but I saw you kind of spoiled it for me … so I’m just going to have to reconsider where I go do it,” she said.

Clinton also discussed issues at both the Congressional and executive levels that she believes have prevented — or at least slowed — successful and effective governance.
“I think it’s a combination of both a Congress that is no longer functioning effectively and a very difficult situation in our executive branch … it has not kept up with the times,” she said. “We don’t have the kind of agility, and flexibility and technology, so the bureaucracy moves slowly, the Congress is gridlocked — so we have a crisis in our democracy.”
Watch the first part of the interview below:
Clinton also said she believes the United States isn’t telling its story well.
“We do have a great story,” Clinton said. “We are not perfect by any means, but we have a great story about human freedom, human rights, human opportunity and let’s get back to telling it to ourselves and believing it about ourselves and then taking it around the world.”

Monday, July 14, 2014

The Strange Leak of the New Exposé ‘Clinton, Inc.?

Sure, hotly anticipated books leak all the time. But 10 days early? And by a tipster who seems to be posing as a Tea Partier—but who one source suspects is affiliated with the Clintons?
The marketing and publicity folks at Broadside Books, the conservative imprint of HarperCollins, had ambitious and detailed plans for the rollout of Clinton, Inc.: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political Machine.
They included plentiful television and media appearances by the author, Daniel Halper, who is online editor of the right-leaning Weekly Standard—notably an early guest shot on The OReilly Factor, the highly rated prime-time show on the Fox News Channel, of which HarperCollins is a corporate sibling.
But those plans were dashed over the weekend by a prolific but mysterious rogue distributor who somehow got a copy of Halper’s book and blasted out a series of mass-media emails containing PDFs—or portable document formats—of the entire 317-page, 12-chapter volume that was officially under wraps until the designated publication date, July 22.
On Sunday the publisher was caught flat-footed and scrambling to respond to the leak. Although the email blast happened on Saturday night, HarperCollins officials didn’t learn of the breach until the following morning because the corporate email system had been taken down for maintenance.
“I’ll have to talk to my colleagues tomorrow and we’ll figure it out,” HarperCollins publicity manager Joanna Pinsker told The Daily Beast when asked how the leak will affect the book’s marketing campaign. “It certainly didn’t come from the publicity department,” she added, noting that bound manuscripts—but no finished books—were sent only to journalists who signed nondisclosure agreements promising not to break the July 22 embargo. She said the marketing department is investigating the real source of the rogue emails, and once he or she is identified and located, a stern letter will follow.
“We really have no idea” how the premature release occurred, said Adam Bellow, Broadside’s top editor. “The book was closely held prior to release, but now that it is physically in shipment there are many ways of obtaining a copy. It does seem strange, however, that this totally obscure person has somehow obtained the private email of dozens of top political and media reporters.”
On Saturday night, emails from someone who identified himself, unusually, as Robert Josef Wright—a name not immediately accessible on Google or other commonly used databases—began blasting to more than 100 prominent and less prominent print and online journalists and television anchors, occasionally using their personal addresses. Among the copied recipients were NBC News President Deborah Turness; The Washington Posts media reporter, Paul Farhi; CNN’s Jake Tapper; New Yorkmagazine’s Joe Hagan; and Fox & Friends co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck.
“Here is a book I bought today that you all must read. Its [sic] coming in several emails so it doesn’t spam you,” Wright—or, rather, “Wright”—wrote in his initial email. “Someone has exposed The Royal Clinton’s [sic]. King Smarmy Bill, Queen Smug Chilary, and Princess Spolied Chlesea [sic]. I don’t know David Halper or his other books. But he obviously knows people who have been dying to tell the truth and finally have.
“Will you take it seriously or will the liberal press coronate the Clintons by attacking the messenger.
“More chunks to come soon.”
The email was signed: RJW/ Spreading The “Wright” Message
While the contents of hotly anticipated titles occasionally leak prior to their publication dates—notably Hillary Clinton’s State Department memoir, Hard Choices, which Politico obtained and summarized three days before its official June 10 release—it’s rare that a book is stripped bare more than a week ahead of its scheduled unveiling.
“When a book is being shipped to whatever bookstores, the people working in the bookstores are expected to keep them in the back of the store in their sealed boxes, and they’re not supposed to unpack them until the day the book goes on sale,” Pinsker said. “But time and again, they do just that”—i.e., open the boxes early and stack the books on the shelves. Respecting release dates has gotten more problematic, of course, with the advent of PDFs, she added.
Bellow, for one, was skeptical of “Wright”’s claim that he purchased Clinton, Inc. “I don’t think that is possible unless he bought it off the back of a truck,” the editor emailed.
Another publishing source, who asked not to be named, said “Wright”’s online identity as a Clinton-hating wingnut with sloppy spelling and grammar issues is also cause for suspicion.
“The working theory of who it might be is somebody who wants to come across as a conservative, but in a way it seems like they’re trying too hard,” this source said. “So it might be somebody who’s not a conservative. They have an excellent, sophisticated media list, including people who are not commonly known, so this is somebody with some Washington-New York media savvy. The most likely suspect would be someone affiliated with the Clintons.”
That, of course, is pure speculation, unsupported by evidence. The Daily Beast’s emails requesting comment from spokespeople for former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received no response. But various Clinton loyalists were apparently more than curious about Halper’s research and reporting process as the book project was under way; Halper writes that an assistant to longtime Clinton political guru James Carville asked for the names of interviewees and a detailed description of the scope of the book—questions the author dodged.
And, of course, there's another possibility here: that "Wright" is actually part of a sophisticated PR ploy by the author or publisher to gain attention for Clinton, Inc.
Unlike scandal-monger Ed Klein’s fantastical No. 1 best-selling narrative about the supposed Blood Feudbetween the Clintons and the Obamas, Halper’s study is juicy and gossipy, yet scrupulously researched, drawing on numerous on-the-record conversations (as well as many not-for-attribution interviews) with prominent Democrats and Clinton insiders, past and present.
Among those who participated openly in Halper’s project are former Clinton White House press secretary Mike McCurry, White House scandal spinmeister Lanny Davis, former Clinton-era United Nations ambassador and secretary of energy Bill Richardson, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, former senator Joe Lieberman, and Sen. John McCain; also interviewed for the book were several unnamed former Clinton aides who provided occasionally jaded observations of Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea.
Perhaps surprisingly, it’s Bill Clinton who emerges as selfish and coldly calculating in the portrait drawn by Halper’s reporting, and Hillary who comes off as warm and caring, albeit charmingly transactional for political gain, particularly with her Republican colleagues in the Senate. All the Clintons are described as obsessed with enriching themselves, using their charitable foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative not only to perform good works but also to help support an imperial lifestyle and provide Hillary’s presidential ambitions with a vast political infrastructure.
A chapter devoted to Chelsea, titled “Daddy’s Little Girl,” portrays the former first daughter as scarred by life in the political fishbowl and the public humiliation of her father’s philandering, but also the entitled beneficiary of both her parents’ feelings of guilt over the weirdness of her upbringing. “When you screw a young White House staffer,” a source “very close to the Clinton family” told Halper, referring to theMonica Lewinsky scandal, “you’re paying the price for the rest of your life. When your daughter wants to buy a ten-million-dollar apartment, the question isn’t ‘Are you crazy?’ It’s ‘Where do I wire the money?’”
In a chapter titled “Charm Offensives,” Halper reports on a very strange encounter the former president allegedly had with a group of rich Republicans at the 2003 running of the Preakness, where Clinton allegedly told off-color jokes at the Turf Club of Baltimore’s Pimlico Race Course.
According to Halper, Clinton—“always eager to please”— told his embarrassed audience a joke that began: “These two old Jews are walking down the street.”
“As the joke begins, everyone around the table looks dubious,” Halper writes. “Where is he going with this? Surely the former president of the United States is not about to tell an anti-Semitic story in front of people he hardly knows. This, of course, is exactly what he does, according to a number of people present.”
Briefly, the joke has the two Jewish codgers walking by a Catholic church, where a sign out front offers $100 to converts. One of the Jews, named Abe, agrees to convert and give half the proceeds to his friend. Abe meets with the priests, learns the traditions of the church, is declared a Catholic, and collects his reward.
“Hey! Look at the new Catholic here,” Abe’s friend says. “You got my money?”
To which Abe retorts: “You fucking Jews. It’s all about the money, isn’t it.”
Halper writes: “As the former president laughs, the others offer weak smiles. No one wants to offend him.”