Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 3:22 PM
Secretary Clinton released a financial disclosure form yesterday, revealing that she and Bill made between $6.1 million and $8.1 million last year. Bill made $2 million in foreign speaking fees alone in final weeks of the year, after it was rumored Hillary would get the secretary of state nod.
More from the Washington Wire:
The new Obama administration’s top diplomat disclosed that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, earned $5.7 million in speaking fees last year, most of it from foreign corporations. He picked up honoraria from companies in India, Portugal, Mexico and Germany, and earned $350,000 from a bank in Kuwait, $200,000 from an equities firm in Malaysia and $300,000 from an automotive company in Hong Kong. The largest sum came from a Canadian motivational firm called The Power Within Inc. , which paid the former president $1.25 million.
For some reason, them making lots of money turns me on. haha
What's the point of the original post? Bill and Hill "raked it in" -- So what? How much money did BO and MO make? I don't really care.
If the Clintons are rolling in dough, that's fine with me. More power to them. Their hearts are in the right place.
Not to mention we all know the Clinton's had bank years ago, and the year after that, and the year after that. Pretty lame, even for this blog.
We've known for years that Bill earned money from foreign speeches; it was revealed in the disclosure documents Hillary released when she was in the Senate.
I don't understand why the blogger made this statement, either. "Bill made $2 million in foreign speaking fees alone in final weeks of the year, after it was rumored Hillary would get the secretary of state nod."
Those speeches would've been scheduled way in advance, and "rumors" she would get the nod mean nothing.
You seem to having a problem with the Clintons making lots of money. Remember, they give a ton to charity, too, and Bill gives many speeches for free or at a reduced rate. They also had to pay back all those millions in legal bills after the Ken Starr witch hunt.
Bill and Hillary raked it in last year?
It makes me proud that we have a former President that is so popular overseas, as well as in the US, that he is able to use his great intellect and knowledge to not only benefit his family, but also the whole world. His great works should be lauded, not scolded, by jealous scum. He's worth every penny he earns, and more. Go Bill and Hill!!!
ZOMG! A MOTIVATIONAL FIRM IN CANADA ASKED BILL CLINTON TO SPEAK! ZOMG! NEWZWORTHY! CRAZY!
More bunk news, this time from O'hara herself. At least we know where she stands too. The 2nd story exactly like this in 3 days no less .Is this blog writing for 5 year olds? Who is this intended for, even hillary-hating O fans wouldn't find this interesting. Pretty lame.
Have they misjudged their audience here?
If the folks who write this blog are going to deride the Clintons, then I think they have misjudged their audience. If you are going to present the "official" Obama admin spin on "the Clintons", then you should not aim your blog at hardcore Hillaryites, because frankly, you will get called on it every single time.
Anne, we must keep this blog honest, like I've said before. Or else they should just start calling it "Cat Scratch" so that we all know where it is coming from immediately.
This site is good for Hill news, but one of its objectives IS getting digs at the Clintons. That's the media's job.
If you do not take digs at the Clinton's , you will be called " A Clinton apologist". In our press, kissing Bush's butt for 8 years is called "good journalism". But if one does not regularlly slamm the Clintons...well then you just aren't a "serious" journalist. You don't get ahead treating them fairly.
But even so , this headline is particularly offensive.
The fangs are out.
NYCgirl, Indeed. I think they are trying to change Hillaryites views of Hillary. Good Luck with that. lol!
I disagree that it's trying to change views, many of the entries are non-news or false news with a negative spin or trying to raise suspicions where there are none to be had, this entry falls under non-news/raise suspicions. But I doubt their audience is people who are open to Hillary Clinton, it is much more likely to be for republicans and/or for Obama supporters that hate the clintons. Although I'm not sure how this entry would even amuse any Clinton hater with over a 75 I.Q., It's just senseless.
I have yet to see an article by Megan or O'hara in the past about Obama RAKING IT IN on his AWESOME MTV AWARD WINNING BOOK in which he admits to being a drug user. Or about his tax returns that show he never gave to charity before he starting running for president, after which he only gave to his racist church that featured pastors calling Hillary Clinton a white supremest and that she never had to work hard because she's white. Read the drivel Megan wrote in the past about Clinton and Obama, it's the same crap, only now it barely makes sense because there is not bitter primary. Hillary Clinton who is substanially more qualified and experienced than Obama is now working for him, and Obamaphiles are still not happy with that so they have to dig up non-issues to satisfy others that feel the same.
The real question is, why ue a foreign policy magazines blog to use the secretary of state section for catty digs, non-news and mindless Clinton hate. Seems like they would be more serious about the position of secretary of state of the United States. Princple-free, just like their Obama-alla.
It always cracks me up when we hear things like the Clinton's " raked it in" . And the money is an amount a Medical Insurance CEO wouldn't pick up off from the floor because he didn't know where it's been. Oh yeah, Bill and Hill are rolling in it LOL!
So what? All the more power to them. After all, money rules, doesn't it?
I bow to no one in my Hillary and Bill admiration. I believe my up thread comments were misunderstood.
Well-deserved, Bill and Hillary! Both Givers...
Obama didn't offer Hillary a hand when the primaries were all but over. He outspent Hillary 5:1 in advertising and had the media misogynist leg-thrillers rooting for him. She still received 300,000 more in popular votes than Barrak did! And she paid her own campaign over 5 million.
I remember reading stories a couple of decades ago of the "two hillibillies who made it to the White House" and I had applauded them then. I still do. I don't know of any other American couple who has GIVEN more than these two have. They started with nothing and have given their gifts to the world. And, according to their last filed statements, they are giving over 10% of their earnings to charity.
So, I say, together with thousands of people in this sad, hurting world we live in, thanks for giving us your talents, your good deeds, your gifts, and Good Luck. And may you always prosper in good health. Well-deserved!
Obama campaigned against Women's rights in Kenya
"Rwanda" commenter is misguided*
Do you recall in 2006 Obama visited Kenya, uninvited, to campaign on behalf of his Luo billionaire slumlord cousin Odinga who advocated Sharia law with appropriate stoning and burqa coverings for girls and women there. Obviously, Obama didn't give a rat's posterior for this little detail. So, he spent thousands of taxpayers' dollars to ensure his cousin's "Change and Hope" campaign was a big success. It wasn't. So, in December of 2007, when riots were started by Odinga's followers, the (then)President of Kenya condemned Obama for being "a young, inexperienced Senator interfering in a sovereign country". The BBC and the CBC covered this mess. Over 200,000 people are now homeless as result of these catastrophhic riots and hundreds of women were raped in burning churches.
Mr. Obama didn't [and hasn't still] lend a helping hand to his own countrywomen who are currently refugees in their own country, roaming the countryside aimless, rootless and vulnerable to further crippling, degrading sexual assaults due to his "interference in a sovereign country's affairs" and support of a warmonger whose sharia law and other initiatives have tremendously demoralized and permanently harmed the lives of Kenya's young girls and women.
So, "Rwanda", who is the real "monster" here, eh?
(16)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE