SAME OLD STORIES: Marcus and Bruni have money troubles!


Part 3—These old story-lines never end:
With fans like the Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus, who needs an enemies list?

In her column this Sunday, Marcus identified herself as “a fan of Hillary Clinton.” Within the upper-end insider press corps, this is the way such people have reasoned all through the Clinton/Gore years:
MARCUS (5/24/15): Hillary Clinton’s unseemly speechifying

Again with the speeches. The gross excessiveness of it all,
vacuuming up six-figure checks well past the point of rational need or political seemliness. The ceaseless drip of information that ought to have already been released, now being presented with a self-serving back pat over transparency.

I wasn’t planning to write, again, about Hillary Clinton’s compulsive speechifying. I already weighed in nearly a year ago urging her to stop talking. For money, that is.

That unheeded advice came, by my accounting, some $6 million ago.
Not including Bill Clinton’s speeches. Not including any speeches that Hillary Clinton made on behalf of the family foundation, which just disclosed that, um, it neglected to disclose somewhere between $12 million and $26 million of money it made by booking the Clintons.
Again with the speeches? The gross excessiveness of it all?

In fairness, we had the exact same set of reactions! But we were reacting to Marcus’ “compulsive columnizing” about this same old subject, which also drove the way her gang wrote about Candidate Gore.

We’ve read these same old stories before, with the same old points of view and the same old double standards. Frank Bruni, who isn’t a fan of Clinton, was trundling down this same old road in his own column this Sunday.

Within the realm of Bruni and Marcus, this is the way you approach the world, whether you’re a fan of Clinton or a borderline hater. Unless you don’t care who reaches the White House after our current endless campaign, we think you should be concerned by the widespread déjà vu occasioned by these same old columns.

Almost anything can trigger these same old screeds, as Marcus proved in her piece. But before we examine the outrage which set Marcus off this time, let’s get clear on the depth of her concern.

In Sunday’s column, Marcus understated her track record in this area. By our count, this is at least the fifth column she has devoted, since last June, to Hillary Clinton’s “greed.”

It’s true! Last June, Marcus did “urge” Clinton to stop speaking for pay. More accurately, she issued a type of command:
MARCUS (6/29/14): Which gets me to the second set of issues: how you're continuing to vacuum up the money, and the aura of greediness it exudes. Madam Secretary, enough already. This behavior borders on compulsion, like refugees who once were starved and now hoard food. You're rich beyond your wildest imaginings! You don't need any more! Just. Stop. Speaking. For. Pay.
We’re often struck by the sense of entitlement these masters of the world convey as they issue their directives to the mortals who cross their path.

At any rate, when Clinton didn’t Just. Stop. Speaking. For. Pay., it seemed to set Marcus off. Though still a fan, she wrote a column last month in which she turned to the Yiddish word for “pig” to describe the woman she so admires:
MARCUS (4/26/15): Which brings us to greed, and the Yiddish word chazer. It means “pig” but has a specific connotation of piggishness and gluttony. This is a chronic affliction of the Clintons, whether it comes to campaign fundraising (remember the Lincoln Bedroom?), compulsive speechifying (another six-figure check to speak at a public university?) or assiduous vacuuming-up of foundation donations from donors of questionable character or motives.
Inside the Masonic lodge of the insider press, that’s the way a person writes about those of whom she’s “a fan.”

(Just for the record: We do remember the Lincoln Bedroom. We remember the way Marcus’ newspaper gimmicked the numbers during that heavily-flogged episode, adding Chelsea Clinton’s middle-school slumber party guests to the total number of people who slept in the sacred room—and yes, they actually did that!

(We also remember what happened when USA Today reviewed the tenure of President Bush; they found that a similar number of donors had slept in the White House while he was president. You’ve never heard about that from Marcus, or from pretty much anyone else, and the chances are good that you never will. We have no idea why that’s the case. Apparently, she only applies these same old standards to those of whom she’s a fan.)

Marcus is “a fan of Hillary Clinton” even though Clinton’s a gluttonous pig! Somehow, though, she can’t stop repeating the talking-points which have long been employed by those who have tried to destroy the Clintons and their vassal, Candidate Gore.

After last month’s “gluttonous pig” fan letter, Marcus found herself compulsively columnizing on this subject again. And sure enough! Another of those same old stories was banging around in her head:
MARCUS (5/6/15): Oh, Bill. There you go again. We knew you were going to pop off, but did it have to be so soon—and so tone-deaf?


"We have never done anything knowingly inappropriate in terms of taking money to influence any kind of American government policy," Bill Clinton asserted. "Knowingly inappropriate"—the 2016 version of Al Gore's "no controlling legal authority.”
Live and direct from 1997, “no controlling legal authority” still haunts Marcus’ sleep!

We won’t make you sit through a recitation of the inanity of that tired old tale, which turned on the issue of which room in the White House a person can sit in when making a fund-raising phone call. Suffice to say that stories like this never seem to leave the heads of those who are willing to tell their readers that they are Clinton’s “fans.”

Do you think it makes a difference who ends up in the White House? If you do, we advise you to be concerned about the re-emergence of the same old stories the guild has routinely told about the Clintons and Gore.

Double standards have always abounded in Clinton/Gore money stories:

In April 1999, Marcus’s own newspaper published an astounding magazine cover report about Candidate Gore’s deeply disturbing fund-raising goals. The paper already knew that Candidate Bush was planning to eschew “matching funds,” freeing him to raise much more than Candidate Gore. But so what? They ran the astounding cover report anyhoo, with its amazing cartoon visuals of the rapacious Gore.

We don’t recall the glorious Marcus raising her voice about that ridiculous scam. We get a whiff of that same old story when scribes like Marcus and Bruni complain about Clinton’s approach to fund-raising while rushing past the massive money being raised everywhere else.

Inanity has often been present in Clinton/Gore money stories:

Consider Bruni’s column last Sunday. Is Hillary Clinton a hypocrite because she plans to “round up donations” for a super PAC which “will be panhandling on her behalf...despite much high-minded talk previously about taming the influence of money in politics?”

Actually, no, she pretty much isn’t, as almost anyone should be able to discern. But this same “hypocrisy” club was endlessly used at the New York Times to beat Candidate Gore over the head, even in their “news reports,” even as he was being outraised by Candidate Bush.

(Warning to Democrats! In the Post and the Times of that ludicrous era, Gore’s fund-raising showed he was venal. Bush’s substantially larger fund-raising showed he was well-liked.)

These same old stories are floating around, pretty much as it’s ever been during the Clinton/Gore years. We liberals agreed long ago not to notice such problems, but they still exist.

Do you think it matters if Republicans take the White House? If so, we think you should be concerned by these emanations. Meanwhile, almost anything can trigger these same old stories, as Marcus proved in her latest fan letter.

What inspired Marcus to write her fifth column about the way Clinton’s a greedy pig? The fact that the Clinton Foundation just made a disclosure—a disclosure Marcus says they’re weren’t required to make!

Being a fan, she’s upset because this disclosure could have been made a few months earlier. And she is upset because Clinton scored $6 million in the past year, after the time when the Empress Marcus commanded her to stop.

Just for the record, that’s roughly the amount a mid-level infielder makes.

Money is a major problem in our American politics, as every sane person knows. But the heads of crazy people like Marcus still teem with riotous, tilted tales from the disgraceful journalistic era of the Clinton/Gore pseudo-scandals.

She still remembers the Lincoln Bedroom, but she remembers it only one way. Eighteen years later, she can quote what Gore said in the terrible scandal concerning which room you’re allowed to sit in while you make phone calls.

Would you be OK with a President Walker? If so, you shouldn’t worry about the same old stories which seem to be popping up.

If that prospect doesn’t seem OK, you might be concerned about the ease with which a fan like Marcus finds herself with her “hair on fire” about these troubling matters, which seem to grab such people in rather unbalanced ways.

In her latest column, Marcus said this: “I find myself, once again, with hair on fire” about these money matters.

No problem, one of the analysts cried. Because she’s living in Salem Village, a dunking pool must be nearby!

Tomorrow: “The lesser of two evils”


  1. She writes more in sorrow than in anger. Just think what a world this would have been had the Post upheld the American Tradition of shunning war profiteering into the W years.

  2. "Knowingly inappropriate"—the 2016 version of Al Gore's "no controlling legal authority.”

    Huh? They are two different concepts. Clinton said if there were impropriety, they didn't know what it would be. Gore said the law was ambiguous. The lengths they will go to shoehorn anything into the narrative regardless of its relevance.

  3. Being rich can be unseemly for a political candidate, especially for a Democrat. Enriching oneself solely through one's status as an elected official is especially unseemly, especially for a Democrat.

    1. Sullying one's hands with the dirty business of raising money, whether to support oneself or to run a campaign, is necessary for people who are not independently wealthy. It is only folks like Romney and Bush who can treat money as if it were unimportant. They have it and they will always have it. Not so for anyone who is likely to be a Democrat. That's why these attacks on that greed and the dirty money being chased are aimed by those who serve Republican interests toward those who are Democrats.

      Money is a necessary evil for everyone. Singling out just the Dems to attack over it is not fair. Koch, Koch, Koch.

    2. 11:02 Maybe you are being sarcastic? It's only "seemly" to lose by playing above the existing rules of the game?

    3. Personal enrichment through exploiting oneself as a political or government official is unseemly for a politician who is a candidate for election. Presidents and First Ladies should stay out of the business altogether. It's less odious if a businessman enriches himself through his private business(es).

    4. I suppose Hillary should have taken a vow of poverty and worn sackcloth after leaving the state department like Pastor Mike Huckabee.

      Here's the thing. This is just entertainment for dilettantes like Ms Marcus. They will never be hurt by policies republicans will push once they have the White House in addition to both houses of congress plus the supreme court and a majority of the State houses.

      I really don't give a fuck how much money Hillary made or what the Clintons are worth, it's their policies I care about. You want me to believe Joe Scarborough or Ruth Marcus cares more about average americans than Hillary Clinton who has been a progressive advocate her entire career? Sorry.

    5. mm, i agree it's about policies. Which is why i'm backing Sanders.

    6. 7:16 That's fine, I have nothing against Bernie. He is a good man and strong advocate for progressive causes. What I despise is the demonization of Hillary Clinton that TDH is documenting here. In my opinion, when it comes right down to it there really isn't much difference between Bernie and Hillary policy wise. The difference is, competence and the ability to get things done and Bernie doesn't have it.

    7. Demonization? To me she is acting like Rachel Maddow, who like Hillary makes as much as a middle infielder. For Rachel and the middle infielder, the time on the playing field seems a lot longer, though.

    8. There is a huge difference between Hillary and Bernie. It's Hillary and the current WH occupant who have scant differences.

    9. "There is a huge difference between Hillary and Bernie."

      Correct. She can win.

  4. "We’re often struck by the sense of entitlement these masters of the world convey as they issue their directives to the mortals who cross their path."

    "That said, it’s time for someone to take Maddow by the arm and lead her away from her desk...Instead, a morally sick person keeps waving her arms, raising her voice, rolling her eyes and pimping her snark...[Bill Wolff] needs to take his Judy, his Elvis, and walk her away from her desk."

    Quotations from some guy who earns less than a middle infielder

    1. And yet, 11:06, your example says absolutely zero about the Howler's dead-on comments in this case. Take your little mind and look up "hobgoblin."

    2. I happen to agree with Marcus. Bill already made the Clinton's more than rich enough to make up for the years Hillary had to support the family in Arkansas. She has looked piggish to me, too.

    3. You look more piggish. No doubt you retired early to spend more time trolling.

    4. I agree with Bernie Sanders. Clinton spends too much time groveling at the trough of the super rich.

  5. "Again with the speeches? The gross excessiveness of it all?" writes Bob Somerby criticizing, of all things, someone for covering the same old ground.

    And here is what he says prompted this act of repetition: "What inspired Marcus to write her fifth column about the way Clinton’s a greedy pig? The fact that the Clinton Foundation just made a disclosure..."

    Of course Bob Somerby, in this post about media hypocrisy and repetition repeats his favorite hypocritical act of doing what he criticizes the press for doing...leaving out relevant facts.

    Marcus notes that other former Presidents from Reagan through Clinton and Bush have stuffed big bucks in their pants on the speaking circuit.
    Then she writes:

    "So what’s the problem when Hillary Clinton gets in on the act? It is the difference between being firmly on the exit side of the revolving door and being poised to circle back in. The former presidents are formers. They’re cashing in on the past.

    But Hillary Clinton has, she hopes, a political future. And that counsels prudence. Just because companies are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn’t mean you need to take the money.

    Because to take the check is to invite suspicions that they are seeking to curry favor with you, in your future role. And that your actions were influenced by this largesse."

    I wonder why Somerby left that passage out.

    1. It is lengthy and it distracts from his main point. It adds little to what he has already quoted from Marcus.

      You seem to think it answers his question about what inspired Marcus. It doesn't. It just explains more about why Marcus thinks Hillary is wrong, but it doesn't explain why Marcus cares so much about whether Hillary supports herself by giving speeches.

      The concern that people paying for speeches may be trying to curry favor is silly. Of course they are trying to curry favor. So is anyone who donates to her campaign, and anyone who is nice to her at a public function. Currying favor with each other is what people do. The question is whether Clinton provided value for the speaking fees (e.g., gave a speech) and whether any of her decisions later would ever be affected by such a speaking fee. Given the large number of speeches, the many occasions for campaign donations, the huge number of people she has pleasant interactions with across time, how on earth could such a speaking fee ever be linked to a quid pro quo?

      Conservatives would love to hobble the Clintons by preventing them from making a living, from paying back debts, and from aspiring to future office. That is the real agenda behind these complaints, not any real concern about corruption. There has never been any hint of corruption in the activities of either Clinton, and there have been very thorough investigations.

      When you raise issues like this about Somerby's excerpting, it does suggest you agree with Marcus and want to be attacking Clinton too. You seem to suggest that Marcus had a valid point that was omitted. Is that your agenda? If it is not, you need to be more careful because you are aiding and abetting enemies of liberal causes, perhaps as collateral damage to your main focus on criticizing Somerby.

    2. That there is an agenda is quite clear, isn't it?

    3. @ 3:12 "you need to be more careful because you are aiding and abetting enemies of liberal causes.."

      Yours is a reminder to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.

    4. I get the reference! A real "gotcha", which is good because... uh...

  6. Apparently, you don't know, for example that Reagan made money with columns and speeches between the time he stopped being Governor of California and when he started campaigning for President. It's only wrong when Hillary does it.

    1. Apparently you suggest Ronald Reagan is the transformational figure. He not only shaped how former Presidents stuffed big bucks in their pants, but how wannabe Presidents, like Hillary Clinton, did so between their failed first bid and their second?

  7. I hope when the liberals emerge from their nap in the woods, they don't drop R-bombs this time.

  8. I suggest we put Hillary on the $20 bill and put Elizabeth Warren as the first woman in the White House.

    1. Spoken like a true single-issue voter. What are Warren's positions on issues beyond Wall Street and income inequality. I'll bet you don't know. I'll bet she doesn't even know herself.

    2. Elizabeth Warren is a self made woman.

  9. "(Warning to Democrats! In the Post and the Times of that ludicrous era, Gore’s fund-raising showed he was venal. Bush’s substantially larger fund-raising showed he was well-liked.)" Somerby

    Finally something new from Somerby. I searched the archives and can't find he ever made this claim before.