Is Hillary crazy? Washington Post reports she said rich people "don't need a president"

[antiimperialist]

We all need a president. No need to discriminate. Hillary Clinton thinks rich people do not need one.

Or so says the Washinton Post. In an article today.

In New Hampshire, Clinton fared best among working-class and middle-class voters, while Obama did better with higher-income voters and in college towns -- a demographic that Clinton at one point mocked as people who "don't need a president."

however

Media Matters is now claiming having searched for the quote of Hillary saying these words and having found nothing.

A Media Matters for America review of Google and the Nexis database found an article from the Muscatine (Iowa) Journal that reported that Clinton said at a December 31 appearance: "Rich people don't need a president. They have been doing fine, and have been having a run of luck with George Bush." The Muscatine Journal article also reported that Clinton said: "Children need a president who cares about them and their futures." But Media Matters could find no reports that quoted Clinton saying people "in college towns" don't need a president.
.

Does any of you remember hearing her say that, or reading about it?

Either Hil is crazy or the Washington Post is in deep doodoo for lying about something like this.

[BootinUp]

1. Wash Post is full of shit. nt

[Cha]

2. I saw that hillary statement before the wapo

..this middleclass person does not need hillary for president.

[antiimperialist]

3. Great! you are the man, give me the link please! n/t

[antiimperialist]

16. Hey, I asked for a link...are you there? Where did you see it? Was it a TV show? n/t

[niceypoo]

39. Obviously, he didnt bother reading past the caption

Before lying.

[Anouka]

4. Thank you for posting this. n/t

[The Wielding Truth]

5. The wealthy can buy life, liberty, and pursue happiness.

She is so right. It's always the political poor, who need government and the bully pulpit, to speak for them. They need a President and a Constitution and the Law administered Justly. The rich need only to hire fighters, buy power, and entertain the willing to get their way. The rich can survive almost anywhere.

[antiimperialist]

6. Do you advocate disenfranchising them? n/t

[The Wielding Truth]

12. Disenfranchising the wealthy?

[Yuugal]

13. I do

Rich people have had enough of the American pie. When I think of homeless vets sleeping under bridges, kids suffering through sickness because 99.99999999999% of rich people don't give a shit whether they live or die, old ladies shivering in the cold because they had to chose between meds and food............... yeah I want to do alot more than disenfranchise the rich.

I'm sure its illegal for me to specifically say what I'd like to see done with most of them. Many of us who have been hit hard by the rich-corporatist scumbags in this country would like to hit back.

[antiimperialist]

15. So you want to disenfranchise John Edwards? Wow n/t

[Yuugal]

19. Out of 3 million rich people

There are only a handful who are human. Edwards is one of them. He wasn't a spoiled rich kid like Obama or Hillary, he is a working class guy who worked hard and did well. Your response is just the kind of dismissive crap we get from the "pundits" who pretend there isn't a class war already raging in this country. Good luck shilling for your corporate turd.

One day my class will wake up and on that day....well, like I said its probably illegal to say what will happen.

[antiimperialist]

24. Wow. Rich people are not human lol harsh words there...n/t

[Yuugal]

35. ugly ain't it?

The more my family suffers and the more sleepless nights I spend worrying about the zero chance my daughters will have in this country when they grow up, the more I get angry. The rich people who shipped our jobs away don't deserve the title of human.

I had real hope that since the reps screwed up so badly the last 8 years we could finally get someone into office who actually gave a shit about the working class and the poor. Instead its a contest between 2 people whose pockets are stuffed with corporate cash who are both running on a platform of working with the foxes to protect us hens. Enough of that shit.

[smalll]

10. Exactly.

If she didn't actually say that (that statement was discussed at DU a few days ago I think) I'd actually be a little disappointed. And I stand 100% behind that aide of hers who said "If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool." It's a little harsh, but it makes a valid point.

If you are rich, you can buy yourself health insurance. If you are rich, it matters little to you that gas costs over $3 a gallon now - and if it bothers you, you can always spring for a hybrid. If you are rich and run into trouble with the law, you can at least make bail, and then hire a good lawyer. Money in this country trumps everything else, even race. Even sexual orientation. If you're gay, for example, and feel threatened by McClurkinites down in South Carolina and places like that, well, you can move up north and shutttle between Chelsea, the Hamptons and Provincetown for the rest of your life.

And you know, I'm not anti-capitalist or anti-business. Rich people and their money serve very valid and valuable purposes for society. But I get a little irritated by statements like the OP's.

[Fredda Weinberg]

7. The third option: HRC is absolutely right. Pack up the yacht ... n/t

[Didereaux]

8. "Clinton at one point mocked as people who "don't need a president." key word genii MOCKED

she MOCKED the fucking rich for thinking they did not need no steenking president. Hillarys' biggest problem of late is her goddam OVER-ESTIMATION of peoples intelligence, particularly the MSM and those who listen to, watch or read the,!

[antiimperialist]

9. We don't even know if she even mocked them. The quote cannot be found anywhere n/t

[Didereaux]

25. damn you're right. I jsut looked too and can't find it. ROOOOOVE u sonuvabitch get in here!

[antiimperialist]

26. It certainly can't be found in google, at least n/t

[cloudythescribbler]

11. good point -- tho was it SHE or someone associated w/ her campaign? nt

[Marie26]

14. I hope she DID say that.

I might just have to switch to supporting Clinton if she did. That's exactly right - the rich do not need government in the way that the poor & middle class do. The rich do just fine regardless.

[antiimperialist]

17. Wouldn't that be like, unconstitutional or something? n/t

[Marie26]

18. Like, how?

Bush has advocated for years that the poor & working-class don't need a President, & has put that belief into action in his policies. It'd be nice to see those policies reversed.

[antiimperialist]

20. Yeah but wouldnt disenfranchising the rich be unconstitutional, is my question

Is there anything in the constitution that says that everyone must be allowed to vote?
We would have to make sure that hurdle is out of the way first.

[Marie26]

22. Seems to be confusing two different issues

Enfranchisment is the right to vote, which everybody has. Rich people should be allowed to vote like everyone else. However, if a candidate is elected who decides to represent the interests of the poor first, the rich just have to suck it up & deal. Just like poor/middle class people have just had to deal w/the policies of the Bush Adm.

[robbedvoter]

28. But, you see, only Edwards is allowed to say that. Hillary is called crazy if she does

The sympathy for Bush's base is bizarre.

[Marie26]

33. Yeah, isn't that a very progressive thing to say?

Hillary gets blasted for being too pro-corporate, pro-establishment, & then criticized for supposedly expressing too much support for the poor & disenfranchised. I found the original story, from some obscure newspaper in Iowa. Seems legit enough to me.


"Clinton, appearing with her daughter in Muscatine, recapped her accomplishments and stances on the issues, particularly on health care and children’s issues, and asked for support at the Iowa caucuses on Thursday. The stop was part of her New Year, New Beginnings Celebration tour, that also included visits Tuesday to Keokuk, Fort Madison and Waterloo before ending at a rally in Des Moines.

“Children need a president who cares about them and their futures,” Hillary Clinton said.

She also talked about change and representing America’s middle class. “Rich people don’t need a president. They have been doing fine, and have been having a run of luck with George Bush,” she said.

http://www.muscatinejournal.com/articles/2008/01/02/news/doc477bc5282c5c0339782940.txt

[Colobo]

21. The rich are Americans too.

[robbedvoter]

29. And they have Bush. I am sure they appreciate your sympathy.

[Colobo]

31. Sympathy? I'm a capitalist

and for me the rich are neither my enemy nor my friend. The system has worked for them and that's good. They are as American as anyone.

[robbedvoter]

34. Then, you'll be relieved to see WaPo retracted the lie

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4058060&mesg_id=4058583

[antiimperialist]

32. I ask...who deserve to vote the most...a rich Democrat or a poor Republican?

A rich Democrat, however few of them exist, who wishes we had health care for all and less war, or a poor Republican who despite having no money for college or being highly indebted, continues to vote for the Bushes and the Huckabees of the world...

Tough choice isn't it...

If the rationale behind banning rich people from voting is that they are inhuman, then let's ban those who support the war in Iraq, regardless of their income level.

[Yuugal]

36. I don't want to take away the rich's vote

I just want to make them poorer.

[robbedvoter]

37. No one should be banned from voting. But it's time the poor get representation

as well. That's what the speech was all about.
Poppy said atheists are not citizens. Hillary merely said the poor may have a greater need fir a president - as they didn't have one in 8 years.

[dkf]

23. Guess she doesn't need one then.

She and Bill are LOOOOOAADED.

[robbedvoter]

27. My money is on WaPo making S* up - but what do I know?

:shrug:
I guess only Edwrds is allowed to speak for the poor. if Hillary does it, she's crazy.
Du is suddenly showing compassion for the neglected rich :eyes:

[antiimperialist]

30. WAPO lying about Hil seems to be the last thing in DU'ers minds...

I posted the thread, to be honest, as a condemnation of the newspaper but they are arguing about whether the apparently non-existent quote is a good idea or not.

That's the problem with us liberals these days.

[smalll]

38. The "correct" quote (from your other thread) pretty much supports what the WAPO said -

The WAPO wasn't "lying" -

(The correct quote: )
"I'm well aware that New Hampshire, and America, has a lot of voters who don't think they need a president right now, they're doing fine, they're well educated," she said. "So for them this election isn't about 'me and my family' it's about, you know, 'how I feel' and 'what I hope for.' And that's great, but there are more people in New Hampshire who need a president who will be your champion."

To use a phrase I generally try to shy away from, Hillary was "spot on."