Hillary’s Greed is Destroying Her Presidential Campaign

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


hillaryHillary Clinton’s book tour was supposed to be her first step on the road to the White House. Instead her publisher is looking at a $10 million loss on her royalties alone as shelves at every big box book store groan under unsold copies of Hard Choices and instead of answering softball questions about empowering women, she was forced to discuss her defense of a twelve year old girl’s rapist.

And then there was the money question.

Like the rest of their political movement, the Clintons want to be poor in spirit and rich in mansions. They want to play the class warfare game from a private jet. Usually the media lets them get away with it. No one asks Elizabeth Warren how she combines class warfare and a small fortune. But the media hacks holding out for a Warren candidacy began hammering Hillary over her enormous wealth.

And Hillary Clinton responded with off-the-cuff lies. Her “dead broke” gaffe reminded everyone why her husband wasn’t even the embarrassing one in the bunch. At least he could lie convincingly.

Hillary’s problem is that she is the inevitable candidate that no one actually wants. Everyone agrees that she has a lock on the Democratic Party’s nomination and yet no one likes her.

The right hated her all along and the left has never forgiven her for fighting Obama. If radical Hillary supporters were a problem for Obama, radical Obama supporters are becoming a problem for Hillary. Her enemies in the White House, beginning with Valerie Jarrett, are just waiting for a chance to steal the nomination from her a second time.

Hillary couldn’t afford to show weakness at such an early stage, but her greed did her in.

The Clintons could never stop shoveling every cent into their pockets. They were physically incapable of leaving money on the table. A lot of Democrats haven’t forgotten Pardongate and the disgraceful way that the Clintons left the White House. They just pretended to forget during Hillary’s Senate race.

Many are nauseated by the scale of Clintonworld, the hundreds of millions of dollars that have poured into the Clinton Foundation, an organization whose fundraising is disproportionate to the scale of its accomplishments, and directly into the pockets of Bill, Hillary and even Chelsea.

Liberals like to pretend that they aren’t in it for themselves. The vulgarity of the Clinton greed shows them a reflection of their movement that they don’t want to see.

As Maureen Dowd in the New York Times put it, “The Clintons keep acting as though all they care about is selfless public service. So why does it keep coming back to gross money grabs?” The public service angle is as phony for Hillary as it is for Warren or Edwards, but liberals need to believe the lie to believe in themselves. The infamous Clinton greed kills the illusion and reminds them it’s all about the cash.

Hillary’s book tour featured badly timed six-figure speeches at colleges. Two colleges were run by members of her husband’s cabinet. The whole corrupt spectacle could have been avoided, but she couldn’t help herself and the debate over those speeches became part of the book tour narrative.

But Hillary Clinton’s greed had sabotaged her whole tour from the start.

Her first biography, Living History, had scored a record advance and record book sales. It was sheer hubris for her to extract an advance that was almost twice as big for a second biography that covered nothing that anyone was interested in.

And yet that’s what she did.

Living History’s sales were spurred by one woman and it wasn’t Hillary. Her name was Monica. Hard Choices was a futile effort at interesting people in her political career which consisted of a brief stint in the Senate, a failed presidential campaign and an even briefer and more disastrous stint as Secretary of State.

Hillary’s supporters have never been able to name a single one of her accomplishments. Neither could her ghostwriters.

But Hard Choices didn’t have to be a disaster. It sold reasonably well for a second biography. It wouldn’t have been seen as a disastrous failure if Hillary hadn’t extracted a $14 million advance from CBS. Making that advance back would have required her to sell 2 million copies of Hard Choices.

Almost twice as many copies as Living History.

Instead she managed to sell around 200,000 copies. If Hillary had accepted a modest advance with a sizable royalty, she could have still made out well if the book had done really well, without risking embarrassment if it didn’t.

The Clintons were rich enough not to need the advance. But they can’t leave any money on the table.

They couldn’t do it with Marc Rich. They couldn’t do it with Bill’s foreign speaking fees. They couldn’t do it with Chelsea’s NBC gig or Hillary’s college gigs.

And they couldn’t make the hard choice to forego the big Hard Choices payday.

Now Hard Choices is a bomb and its poor sales raise serious questions about Hillary Clinton’s popularity. CBS may have lost $10 million on Hillary, but the Clintons have lost even more because of their insatiable greed.

If Hillary’s shaky performance leads Elizabeth Warren to run, the Clintons will have to raise a lot of money to stop her. Hillary spent over $200 million to lose to Obama. $11 million of it came out of her own pocket. Hillary’s greed for a big book advance is money that she may end up spending to fight off a left-wing primary challenger emboldened by her implosion.

The Democrats want to run on empathy for the common man suffering under a bad economy, but their candidate is a living reminder of why he’s suffering. The Clintons are part of an elite that profits from direct political access to the upper tier of the political and financial infrastructure of the country. Their enormous wealth makes a mockery of public service and non-profits. Their power and privilege reminds everyone that liberalism is a much bigger welfare state for those on top than those on the bottom.

That’s the dirty secret that strikes at the heart of the liberal power structure. And the Clintons are parading it all over town.

The biggest problem with Hard Choices was always the title. The Clintons don’t make hard choices because they have no impulse control.

That’s what led Bill Clinton to harass every woman within a hundred mile radius and it’s also why Hillary Clinton allowed herself to be recorded laughing about the time she helped a rapist who beat a 12-year-old girl into a coma beat the rap. It’s why the greedy couple stole White House furniture, traded pardons for cash and grabbed every bit of loose change that they could get their sweaty hands on.

The Clintons have always been oblivious to their own vulgarity. They have never understood how they embarrassed their own political allies. Hillary’s gaffes about money, like Bill Clinton’s gaffes about sex, are symptoms of their obliviousness to their lack of self-control.

Bill Clinton’s lack of self-control destroyed his presidential legacy. Hillary Clinton’s lack of self-control may keep her out of the White House.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • DogmaelJones1

    The hubris and arrogance of tyrants and wannabe tyrants (such as Hillary) have always been the undoing of the actors. Look at Hitler. He could have won WWII and put most of Europe in his pocket had he not been greedy to attack the Soviet Union. But attack it he did, And even had FDR not gone to Stalin’s rescue with arms, food, and “moral” support, Hitler wouldn’t have been able to hold onto the parts of Russia he did overrun under the pretext of “living space” and oil. Also, he was no general; he overruled his experienced generals and gave insane orders. Hillary is showing the same careless hubris and arrogance. In her mind, it doesn’t matter how many lies she tells or how offensive she is. If she “wills” it strongly enough, she can’t be defeated. Or so she thinks.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      the same sort of people who build cults of personalities take their cults down with them

      • krinks

        Most cults of personality don’t have the power of the American Mass Media behind them nor the fact that nearly half of the voters are parasites who don’t care where their freebies come from as long as they keep coming. With every passing year, it is becoming more and more apparent that Hitler or Stalin could win if they ran in the U.S. as Democrats.

      • Ginger Li

        Dan – I just now went back to take a look at this column and now regret ever having posted that Hitler quip which sent the commentary off into irrelevant-ville. Your post was excellent and entirely too much space was spent not discussing its content. Lib fascists like the Clintons are entirely baseless when it comes to criticizing greed because they are among the most power/money greed mongers in the public eye. It’s their group’s lack of charity, heartless academic assessments for worthless speeches, their influence peddling, etc. all comes down to an extraordinary level of avarice and greed. And you are totally right: it is a sickness that clouds their rational judgment. Her ‘poor mouth’ will haunt her right up to her decision to pull out, a judgment that will be made based primarily on how much of her wealth is being wasted and slipping away.

        PS – Your columns are always good!

        • Daniel Greenfield

          thanks, it’s not your fault. Hiero specializes in this. If it hadn’t been Hitler, it would have been something else.

          I’m not sure Hillary will pull out. Hubris is another of their traits.

    • shmo123

      I agree with you about Hillary, her hubris, and it being her potential downfall. One can only hope. However, your remarks about Hitler not holding on to his Russian conquests are pure speculation. Had the German armies taken Moscow when they had the chance, who’s to say they couldn’t have shored up their defenses and held off what Russian forces may have arrived from further east? Hitler made many disastrous decisions, but not taking Moscow when it was within his grasp was surely one of the biggest. The allies and the world were better off for it.

      • Buck Disqus

        America should have nuked Berlin and Moscow at the end of the war.

        The allies and the world would have been better off for it.

    • Nabukuduriuzhur

      Hitler almost pulled it off with the Soviets in both 1941 and 1942. If God hadn’t taken a direct hand and sent the coldest winter in a century, with temperatures down to -40 at night, the Germans would have taken moscow.

      (Even today we think of Moscow as being an arctic climate like Peterborg, thanks to that winter, but it isn’t. It’s 50 degrees north, about that of Vancouver B.C. Their climate is moderated by the Gulf Stream, as is the rest of the continent west of the Urals. When I was in Klamath Falls some years ago, I took the oregonian (then a real paper, not the Goebblish/Molotovish paper it is now). They had weather around the world. Consistently during the winter, Klamath Falls was colder, day by day., meaning pretty much every place east of the Cascades was colder in Oregon and Washington.)

      • Ginger Li

        It wasn’t the temperature that defeated the Germans. It was too much Hitler. It’s the same thing that will defeat Hillary – too much of her. Warren could be dangerous for the same reason B. Hussein was – not enough will be exposed of her by the liberal fascist sycophantic Vichy media.

        • Raymond Hietapakka

          Germany ran out of Germans.

        • truebearing

          It was both. Hitler overruled his generals and the German tanks ran on diesel, which back then couldn’t handle really cold weather.

          The United States also played a huge role with the money, trucks, etc. We also helped the Soviet Union inadvertently by turning down the American inventor of the revolutionary tank armor design the Soviets employed in the T-34. If our military hadn’t been so stupid, we would have had a much better tank and suffered far fewer casualties.

          • Well Done

            Good point, truebearing, for all its fame, the Sherman Tank was a death trap. One of its nicknames was “Ronson” because it lit up like a cigarette lighter. Armor tooo thin, gun too small. The only tactical advantage it had was the sheer numbers the factories turned out.

          • hiernonymous

            It was neither. Hitler played a role in a couple of ways – failing to establish a clear single priority, and too much a tactical focus – but the German general staff failed quite nicely on its own, as well. If you want to say Hitler made some bad decisions, that’s true – but if you want to say that the Germans could have won the Russian war if OKW and OKH had been left alone, that would not be true.

            And WWII German tanks did not run on diesel – not sure where you got that notion. As you’ll see below, German tanks ran on high-octane gasoline, and one of the many logistical problems the Germans encountered was that Russian gasoline was too low-octane to be used in German engines, so the Germans could count on scavenged fuel as they could in the Western campaign.

            If you want to get a handle on the logistical constraints that doomed Barbarossa in a short, easy-to-read, and well-thought-out volume, read Martin van Crefeld’s Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton. You’ll learn a great deal about shortfalls in German logistical planning and execution.

            The Germans picked a task woefully beyond their means. Germany’s level of motorization at the outset of the war was only about 1/7 that of America’s. At the outset of the war, only some 16 of Germany’s 103 divisions were mechanized or motorized. Most divisions had some vehicles, but were primarily reliant on horse-drawn transport. Trucks were in such short supply that even the relatively short – both in terms of miles and of time – campaigns in Poland, the Low Countries, and France suffered logistical crises so severe that the Germans could only continue by scavenging on the go, impressing German and captured transport. This, however, multiplied the logistical problems, as all of these various makes and models of ad hoc transport had unique spare parts requirements. By way of helping us understand German constraints, van Crefeld points out that the Allies employed some 60,000 tons of truck transport to supply 47 divisions in the pursuit of the Germans after D-Day, and that wasn’t enough; the offensive stalled in eastern France due to supply shortages. The Germas started the war with about 20,000 tons of truck transport to supply 103 divisions, and the ratio never improved; the number of divisions eventually roughly doubled, while truck production was not adequate to replace mechanical and combat losses, much less build a surplus.

            As for Barbarossa itself, van Crefeld paints a compelling picture of a logistical nightmare. Both the limited number of generally very bad roads (so bad that trailers couldn’t be used behind trucks, and fuel consumption was 50% again what had been estimated) and the limited number of available trucks meant that the Germans would have to rely on rail to have any hope of keeping up with demand. But here again, the German establishment was wholly unsuited to the task. The special train troops had not been trained (no pun intended) well in the conversion of Russian narrow-gauge tracks to standard gauge, and the civilian railways had to be raided for personnel to augment the effort. Russian rail cars could be converted, but locomotives could not. Russian locomotives were larger and traveled longer distances between stops for water, so new water towers had to be constructed. Logistic support was best in Army Group North’s drive toward Leningrad, which failed because 4th Panzergruppe’s need for fuel and ammunition required the Army Group’s entire transport section to be dedicated to keeping it moving, stalling out the two infantry armies hundreds of miles behind it. Even so, the tanks were idle for over a week waiting for the supply depots to be reestablished forward. By the time the formations were mobile again, the Soviets had firmed up the defenses as Leningrad. The Germans couldn’t use Russian ammunition, they couldn’t use Russian coal (without mixing it with German), they couldn’t use Russian gas (it was low-octane and had to be converted in special plants before being used in German engines), and the Russian method of food distribution directly from trains to troops or vehicles meant that there were no large food dumps to capture and use.

            In a nutshell, no conceivable combination of tactical equipment or strategic brilliance would have sufficed to move enough fuel, ammunition, and food forward quickly enough to conquer Russia. These failures were not attributable to Hitler, or more accurately, not to Hitler alone – German logistical planning was unrealistic and lacked unity of command. Van Crefeld argues that the only chance the Germans had was in defeating the Russians within the first 300 miles, and given that the Russian dispositions were about as favorable for the Germans as they could have been, it’s hard to see that happening.

          • truebearing

            I may have gotten the idea that German tanks used diesel from film that focused on their problems with cold weather, but upon review, they didn’t use diesel, as you said.

            Whether they could have defeated the Soviet Union is debatable, but it would have required Hitler listening to his generals and timing it to avoid the worst of the cold weather. They chose an exceptionally cold winter to attack the Soviet Union, and clearly didn’t learn from history.

            That being said, the T-34 design should have graced American tanks.

          • hiernonymous

            It’s one if the more interesting phenomena of WWII that, in the West, we so widely repeat the idea that the biggest problem with the German prosecution of the war was that Hitler didn’t listen to his generals. The primary reason for this is that we slipped into the Cold War immediately following WWII, and turned to those very generals to learn how they had fought the enemy we expected to soon be fighting. It was only natural for the generals to blame their woes on political interference, and it was even sometimes true. But we in the West, as a rule, were more credulous than we should have been. The German high commands made many, many fundamental errors in judgment. Some of those contributed to some of Hitler’s more egregious decisions. For example, Hitler famously refused to allow Paulus to retreat from Stalingrad. Contributing to this was a wholly unrealistic assessment by his Luftwaffe leadership concerning Germany’s ability to supply the pocket by air. Similarly, in planning Barbarossa, it was the general staff, not Hitler, that came up with the wholly unrealistic time projections for the Russian Campaign, and it was the military staff that blithely adjusted those projections downward when it became plain that they weren’t going to be able to stockpile the supplies necessary to support the original projection. Hitler’s famously vague three-prong approach was rooted at least in part by the general staff’s inability or unwillingness to choose between the northern axis of advance, with better supply routes but tougher fighting terrain, or the southern route, with wide open tank country but few roads and railroads.

            As far as the T-34 goes, you have a fair point that we might well have had a superior design if we’d listened to Christie. On the other hand, the same Christie design that inspired the Russian BT series also inspired the British cruiser tanks, and British design turned out to be pretty mediocre. Give Christie his due for innovative suspension and armor, but the T-34 was a next generation application of lessons learned by the Soviets concerning the shortfalls of the Christie design (and Russian manufacturing processes) in combat against the Japanese. It’s not obvious that we would have gone the Russian route rather than the British.

          • shmo123

            The Germans attacked the Soviets in June of 41, and the good weather allowed them to get within shooting distance of Moscow by September. Supposedly the troops could see the spires of Moscow churches with their binoculars. They had their chance long before the onset of winter–but for some reason, Hitler foolishly moved his troops south and never got another chance.

          • Judahlevi

            “These failures were not attributable to Hitler”

            Baloney. Hitler was no military genius, as much as you may want him to be. The entire Russian campaign was the failure of Hitler in strategy.

            The egomaniacal corporal had no business making military decisions. To imply otherwise is foolish.

          • hiernonymous

            You are letting ill will lead you to read poorly. I have nowhere suggested that Hitler was a military genius. What I am taking issue with was the German generals’ postwar attempts to salvage their reputations by shifting responsibility for their own misjudgments to Hitler. Hitler was erratic and made plenty of his own.

            “Baloney.”

            I offered specific examples of cases where the general staff made or contributed to the errors. Did you have a specific rebuttal?

          • Judahlevi

            I offered a specific example – and probably the most important one – Hitler’s decision to invade Russia and open up a two-front war. The weakness of any military logistical planning was secondary to this huge strategic mistake.

          • hiernonymous

            Normally, when one talks about someone’s failures as a ‘military’ decision maker, they are discussing how war is waged, not whether war is waged. Hitler’s track record for deciding when to risk war had actually been remarkably good to that point; he had made a series of shrewd reads concerning the likely political response in most cases.

            You’ll also note that my argument is that the military leadership tried to pass blame to Hitler for its own bad calls; nothing about that implies that Hitler made no bad calls himself.

            Finally, with respect to the prospect of war with Russia, I think you’ll find that the military in large part supported the idea that it was winnable. Most of the senior military leadership thought that the Russians would be a pushover, and most of the objections raised – largely outside the military, but by a few senior officers – were rooted in the economics of the venture, voicing concern that holding Russia would be a net economic drain on the Reich. In short, even the skeptics were doubtful, not that the Germans could win, but that winning would bring any material benefit.

            The weakness of the logistical planning is actually a symptom of the same overconfidence. The logistical planning was weak in large part because the general staff had such a low opinion of the Russian capacity for resistance. The same hubris that plagued the logistical planning led the military to support Hitler’s Russian ambition as sound policy.

            Bottom line: that’s not a good example of a decision that Hitler shoved down the military’s throat against its better professional judgment. There are examples of that, by the way, lest you think that the most productive approach to the conversation is tossing singletons against the wall until one sticks – that would be making the mistake of thinking that there are only two alternatives: Hitler the military dunce overriding a first-rate military staff that might otherwise have won the war, or Hitler the genius making the best of a doomed enterprise. I think that the truth lies in the middle: Hitler was a shrewd opportunist and a competent tactician, his military strategic thinking was hit and miss, and his leadership style – which generally cast him in the role of arbitrator, playing competing interests against one another, rather than as the originator of specific policies – tended to work against unity of effort, an irony in an absolute dictatorship.

          • Judahlevi

            “However, as history has shown, going against the advice of many of his general officers, Hitler ordered the implementation of Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the USSR, to begin on June 22, 1941, effectively creating a two front war and beginning the downfall of the German Third Reich.”

          • Judahlevi

            I will go with a third option which was not mentioned.

            Hitler the military dunce overriding a good staff that would not have won the war anyway.

            Hitler had political skills, but he was ignorant of military strategy and tactics.

          • hiernonymous

            (Note: My response was flagged for the N word – I’ve added spacing and hopefully this will post)

            You might find this article helpful – it’s consistent with the conclusions of the likes of Keegan, Craig, and van Crefeld, some of the the most respected historians in the field (Keegan and van Crefeld, of military history, and Craig, of German history). It helps articulate the point I’m trying to make, which is not that Hitler was a genius, but that his generals were not the brilliant war leaders whose competence was checked only by Hitler’s meddlesome ways.

            The conclusion:

            A final judgement on Hitler’s role is one that calls for some balance. No commander works in isolation, no matter how absolute his power might appear. Germany’s senior military leaders bear a large measure of responsibility for the onset, character and outcome of World War Two.

            They shared Hitler’s weaknesses as strategists – in fact they were arguably even less talented than he was – and their political attitudes and expansionist ambitions put most of them squarely in the N azi camp. They supported Hitler’s goals but could not help realise them at the strategic level. There was no Alanbrooke or Marshall in the group, nor even an Eisenhower. And for all their supposed professionalism, their operational abilities were not so great as their memoirs make them appear.

            You might also consider Dupuy’s A Genius for War, his study of why the Germans consistently inflicted more casualties than it received in the two world wars; his conclusion was not that the generals were better – they were not – nor that the Germans were inherently more gifted soldiers – he manages to debunk that one as well – but that the officer corps as a whole was so much more rigorously trained that junior and midgrade officers consistently outperformed their counterparts in other armies.

          • Judahlevi

            Analysis of history almost always comes down to opinion – an educated guess.

            Very rarely is the synthesis of facts equal to the exact ‘truth’ of any historical event. We can come up with a probability of truth, but cannot say with certainty whose opinion is the right one. We can say that every analysis has bias of one kind or another.

            Even participants in history, like witnesses in an armed robbery, see things differently.

          • hiernonymous

            Sure, but I’d offer two general comments and one final observation on this topic.

            First, not all opinions are equally valuable. A sound opinion does not contradict or ignore available evidence, nor assert that for which there is no evidence. Speculation must be identified as such. Second, when exchanging opinions, one must read arguments honestly and carefully, and respond to the opinion actually offered.

            In this case, I think that it is valuable to identify a common myth concerning the war and temper it with some additional considerations. Many Americans do not realize the extent to which our view of the war was colored by the nature of post-war debriefings and an emerging Cold War that made many disinclined to present Soviet accomplishments in a favorable light. My reaction’s similar to reading opinions about the Napoleonic Wars and hearing how Napoleon was defeated by “General Winter.” In fact, he was defeated by two canny and wise generals by the names of Barclay and Kutuzov, who had the wit and nerve to keep retreating along their lines of supply while the Czar and people grew increasingly frantic. They understood the terrain, the weather, and the strategic folly of Napoleon’s course of action, and played to their strengths. I bring these up because Russia has historically had brilliant field commanders, and overlooking this fact while crediting their victories to meteorology is a sure path to disaster.

          • Judahlevi

            I agree that there are often “myths” associated with historical events that are helpful to be dispelled. This thread can certainly not dispel all or any myths associated with WW2.

            But there are also myths which are created to try to revise or spin history to match certain world views. In this case, one takes the truth of history and tries to revise it for their own agenda – whatever that might be.

            Both of these possibilities are present with any analysis of history. How much weight is given to any analysis is going to be dependent somewhat on whether the reader agrees with the worldview of the author. There is bias not only in authors, but readers as well.

          • Pete

            hiernonymous is making a lot of good points here.

            His technical analysis of WW2 is by far the best on this thread.

            We disagree with him about Islam and some other subjects and he comes across as a school marm in this and other forums. But to ignore his WW2 analysis would be folly.

          • Judahlevi

            I could ignore his “analysis” all day long and not miss anything. If I want a treatise on WW2, I would not try to find it here or from this individual. This is not “folly.”

            You may consider him a “school marm” if you think he knows more than you do – that is fine. I don’t. I have studied WW2 from books written by authentic war historians – not from a “thread” in a comments section that had nothing to do with WW2. My source material is far superior to this thread.

            If you learned something new, that is good for you. Don’t assume everyone else did. I also would not assume that anything you learned was the ‘truth” but one person’s opinion. Do your own research.

          • Pete

            School marm as in preachy (as in excessive fault finding).

            He has some good points.

            I do seem him take people to task at rightwing sites but never leftwing sites. So I wonder what his game is.

          • Judahlevi

            It is pretty clear what his “game” is.

            I can tell you with this analysis, he left out a critical mistake in German planning for Operation Barbarossa that no true historian would overlook.

            But frankly, this was not a discussion about the operation anyway.

          • hiernonymous

            What are the sources? Who issued the stern warnings, and when? Do you contend that this represented OKW’s position?

            Again, it’s common to rely on self-serving memoirs by the generals to build the picture.

          • Fritz

            Actually it’s the opposite way around, the Russian/Soviet gauges were wider then standard gauge, not narrower. The standard track gauge is 4′ 8-1/8”, Russian Gauge is either 4′ 11-27/32” or 5′, also used in Finland which used to be part of Russia. I had heard that this was a deliberate decision on the part of the Russians to inhibit and frustrate an invading army, so it looks like that strategy played out exactly as intended. This was not a decision made during the Soviet era however, but the Tsarist one before it, which was when most of the major railroads were built in that area of the world. That being said it was something that the Germans could have prepared for and coped with, had they not pushed the invasion forward by a year, but even then who knows?

          • hiernonymous

            Right you are, I reversed them.

            In the late Cold War, when I was stationed in West Germany, the gauge difference still played a role. The Soviets had created special rolling stock that could essentially be lifted off its wide-gauge undercarriage onto a European standard chassis to facilitate moving supplies toward it’s forward positions.

            You are probably right that attacking in 1942 would have given the Germans time to train and equip their rail troops properly, as well as lay in stocks of fuel and ammunition, produce trucks, etc. on the other hand, the Soviets would have had another year to recover from the purge and prepare itself as well, so who knows?

            There’s a commercial wargame that goes by the name of World in Flames by Australian Design Group that does a pretty fair job of letting one explore the what-ifs. It’s a big commitment of time and space – the maps cover the area of a Ping-pong table, the rules are close to 200 pages, IIRC, and there are well over 1000 playing pieces representing ground, air, and naval units. When I was stationed in Monterey, a group of 6 of us met weekly to play, and it took about 6 months to complete a game. The designer made assumptions that are subject to disagreement, but the beauty of a map-and-paper game is that you can change the mechanics and the assumptions, unlike the more popular computer simulations.

  • Judahlevi

    We can only hope that Hillary will be kept out of the White House. With the current American electorate, that outcome is in doubt.

    The 2014 midterms should be good for conservatives with a potential for full control of Congress. Obama is fumbling one crisis after another at the worst possible time for the Democrats (what did anyone expect?).

    Between 2014 and 2016, it will be up to Republicans to establish that they have a superior political philosophy, better values, and a more positive direction for the country. Obama has set the bar low, but they must still get over it in a convincing fashion.

    • ricardo

      The problem is Republicans are the same wolves with different disguises. I say get rid of primary elections, and let it all hang out in one election. Then we won’t get stuck electing the most extreme person in a primary, and get stuck with partisan bullcrap again.

      • Judahlevi

        The reality is we have a two party system in the US.

        You can either vote for Republicans and hope for better results, or you will be stuck with Hillary. Those are the only two choices.

        And I don’t believe that Democrats and Republicans are morally the same. That is the moral equivalency argument by leftists applied to political parties. They aren’t perfect, but they are better than Democrats and their platform.

        • Well Done

          I agree, the talk of Dem=Repub is probably coming from the 0bama war room; a room that spends more effort fighting Repubs than the 0bama administration spends fighting America’s enemies.

          • Show me the money

            When their results differ, I’ll entertain the notion that both political parties are not rowing with the same destination in mind. They may have different paths, different branding, different PR apparatus, but from a results point or view, debt has increased, the size and scope of government has increased and the destruction of individual liberty has has increased. The only things that have decreased are their self control and willingness to not screw the citizens of this country. Is it a surprise that the wealthy got much wealthier, at a faster clip under a democrat, who espoused the opposite when running for office?

          • hiernonymous

            Oh, that’s been around much, much longer than that. I invite your attention to the attached video, at the 5:17 mark, where Dudley Moore is being prepped for his trip to America. In explaining the two party system, he’s told “They’ve got the Repulican Party, you see, which is the equivalent of our Conservative Party, and there’s the Democratic Party, which is the equivalent of our Conservative Party.”

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUd1OxPbKk4&list=RDKUd1OxPbKk4#t=23

      • truebearing

        They aren’t the same. The Democratic Party has been entirely taken over by the radical Left. The Republican Party still has some Progressives, but it is being pushed to the right by the Tea party and libertarians. Of the two, the Republican Party is still the better than the Democratic Party, despite the Lindsey Grahams and John McCains we need to get rid of.

      • Buck Disqus

        Not all Republican are rinos. And you are lying when you claim we wind up “electing the most extreme person in a primary” because thats not what has been happening.

        a/ In the last two generals the MODERATE repub has spent the primaries fighting us conservatives with more vitriol than he wold use against the Dems.

        b/ Too many states have OPEN Republican primaries so Democrats are voting for the “moderate” rino knowing he will lose or that they can stomach him if he wins.

        BAN OPEN PRIMARIES.
        FORCE THE RINOS OUT OF THE PARTY.

        • hiernonymous

          I don’t mind closed primaries, but I very much mind closed primaries that make any use of public funds and resources. If I have to pay for the damned thing, I should get to vote in it.

    • carpe diem 36

      will not happen. the america public is made up of idiots who do not know how to protect themselves from evil, and evil is what we have now in the WH, and if Hillary is elected we will have even more evil in the WH. The fools are her followers and supporters, and there are too many of them and too few of us smart ones.

  • Crazycatkid

    Here’s my phrase and you can steal it. “Every psychopath always overplays his(her) hand.

    • jesse s. pierce

      my buddy’s sister makes $67 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for six months but last month her income was $13841 just working on the internet for a few hours. try this
      ========>>>>> http://WWW.MONEYKIN.COM

      • NewFedFAA

        WELL….MY buddy’s, cousin’s, step-mother makes $10 an hour at Wal-Mart! And the best part is she gets to leave the house every day and ride the bus!!!
        Not impressed? Well, at least its a true story and not BULLSHIT!!!
        Die Troll!!!!

  • johngvanvliet

    Hillary and Obama wear the same coat, they call themselves democrats and promote equality and helping the have not’s, but in the mean time they are helping themselves and filling their pockets, they do NOT care about the nation, but care first about themselves, the a compliments of Hillary are ZERO… she has nothing accomplished during her opportunistic political career and has no substance to offer except some philosophical BS… She and Obama are the same just a differ jacket at the exterior…… I am pleased to see how she is being squeezed into what she is really all about, an talker like Obama not do doer….. So What does it matter anymore ?????

  • Lanna

    Hillary is just another Socialist….If you are dissatisfied with Obama’s policies you will be dissatisfied with her ideologies of governing!

    • Mrs. Right

      Precisely, because her ideologies do not consist of governing, but of ruling.

  • soundnfury

    I was always amazed at how Dems could swallow the John Edwards line that he was just fighting for the little guy, but then they go & do the same thing with the Clintons. Nothing surprises me with this crowd of idol worshippers.

  • djred678

    Simon & Schuster will get the rest of their book advance after Hillary is elected. This is just a long term investment strategy.

    • Ammianus

      Aren’t book sales by politicians just thinly veiled fund raising techniques? That is, won’t some wealthy Democrat leaning supporters buy up the stockpiles so she will make her two million sales?

  • bigjulie

    The Presidency will be the frosting on her disaster cake she has built for herself ever since she married Bill. The Democrats are so addicted to attempting to build silk purses out of sow’s ears they can no longer help themselves. They take pride in successfully pulling the wool over America’s eyes and any loss on that account has no shame for them but simply a renewed effort to look at the weakest points of their arguments in an attempt to shore them up to at least minimum believability for “next time”. They simply do not give a damn about this country, except as a cow to be milked dry…mostly for money! I do hope they can see their way to change some of the shibboleths, however. Everything from “the smartest person in the room” to “creases in her slacks” are more than a bit tiresome and disingenuous. and are becoming a laughingstock to most voters.

  • Habbgun

    If Christine Quinn couldn’t win in New York City after being head of the City Council and Bloomberg’s personal pick at succession you have to wonder how electable any “pantsuit” Democrat can be. Hillary should grab everything she can like the good Democratic machine politician she is,

  • meanpeoplesuck

    Ahh, the Tighty Whitey Righteys are running scared. You know she is going to be the next president, you have no viable candidate, just deranged unelectable lunatics. And you have some nerve to talk about greed since you are the party of the Koch Brothers, Halliburton and vulture capitalists like Romney.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      You’re the party of billionaire non-profits.

      • Judahlevi

        “Whitey?”

        What is this obsession with skin color by leftists? Do they really believe that an individual’s skin color defines them?

        • WalterBannon

          they are racists and bigots, but they like to project that on their opponents

      • meanpeoplesuck

        At least our billionaires give something back to society. Yours are blood sucking leeches who continue to destroy the planet.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          You give back regulations, corruption and theft.

    • NonPCconservative

      Nice handle. You should think about changing it when you become a teenager as you may find it embarrassing.

    • UCSPanther

      How does it feel to be a dim-witted chimpanzee?

    • truebearing

      The richest man in the world is a liberal, moron, and he lives in the US. The third richest man in the world is a liberal and he lives in the US. George Soros is worth at least 20 billion, that he stole from anyone he could, including the American people, and he supports leftists with tens of millions of dollars.

      It appears you not only suck but are a hypocrite.

    • Well Done

      LOL “koch bros” “halliburton” “capitalists”… koo koo! koo koo!

    • carpe diem 36

      there was a time that being a Capitalist was a badge of honor, because they made the country rich, they employed people and paid a lot of taxes which benefited other capitalists and other workers and produced things that other people could sell and make a living a employe more people. Something horrible happened in America where being a moocher is honorable and being a capitalist is derogatory.

      • meanpeoplesuck

        They make themselves rich while enslaving the people at substandard wages, deny them healthcare because their imaginary friends god and jesus will take care of it, send other people’s children off to kill women and children in other countries so we can steal their oil, and they pay no taxes- they incorporate overseas. Who are the moochers? The filthy 1%er leeches.

    • steves_59

      I’m guessing that self-reflection is not your strong suit, since Lefties are the party of Steyer, Wall Street, faux Indians, and a shameless sense of entitlement.
      Don’t waste a single one of your oh-too-few brain cells looking up the definition of “irony.”

  • kasandra

    Excellent column. While there’s nothing new about greedy politicians (I mean, why do people spend millions of dollars to get a job that pays a couple of hundred thousand?) but you really nailed the Clintons’ tragic flaw – a total lack of impulse control.

  • mtnhikerdude

    So the Dems are trading Hillary for Elizabeth (see my feathers) Warren . One money grubber for another .

  • Sheik Yerbouti

    She has always shown her greedy side. Why is it an issue now? I’d say they want to draw attention away from the way the race card was used on her last time. To great effect.

    She’s the most visible example of the effects of race politics taking over the democratic party. If a non-white democrat runs in 2016, Hillary is toast. Or maybe they have proof the Rodhams owned slaves. (Or maybe it can be fabricated).

    All the anti-white rhetoric spewed by the left for last few decades is paying dividends for non-white democrats. White democrats are an endangered species and they brought it all onto themselves.

  • Bandido

    Dan, do not be so quick to write Hillary off. The Clinton machine is formidable; she has huge name recognition; would-be Democratic competitors are nonentities; Obama’s like will not be seen in 2016. She may have to battle herself a bit for the nomination, but she will get it. And win the general easily, to the country’s shame. Of course, that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.

    • chelmer

      There are things that medical science can’t fix, and she’s obviously in terrible physical condition. I do believe that she logged all those flight hours while SOS: one look at her is a source for alarm. She looks past the point of no return in terms of exercise or diet. There’s no way she will survive a long campaign without collapsing physically.

  • Sharps Rifle

    Dan, another great essay! You always get right to the point, back that point up, and then leave the reader with something to think about. Always worth reading! Have a great weekend, Pard!

    • Daniel Greenfield

      thanks, you too

      • chelmer

        Others think it, but he writes it.

  • Libslayer

    Warren is an even bigger nightmare than Hillary, but she doesn’t have the corrupt baggage and paper trail. Obama backs warren because a) he hates the Clintons and wants revenge and b) she is the hard core Marxist who is best suited for the complete Detroitification of America, or “fundamental transformation” as Barry calls it.

    • carpe diem 36

      while she is not as rich as the Clintons, shall I say yet?? , she is not poor by any means, she is worth about 15,000.000.00!! that is a tidy sum in anyone’s book. Why is it that such a person is a Socialist and she has the following of the ignorant poor who think she is the solution to their poverty. What an ugly hypocrite she is!!!

      • Ginger Li

        Should she run, Fauxcohontas will look just as ridiculous yapping about greed as well.

  • WalterBannon

    They are sociopaths like all liberal politicians

  • Raymond Hietapakka

    Billilah and Hillariah Rotten-Khlintoon Al-Arkansawia work for The House of Saud.

  • truebearing

    Yes, Bill and Hillary Gatsby…they just can’t get enough money to exorcise their humble origins and envy demons. This is pretty much what drives all leftists. They can’t make enough money to satisfy themselves by earning it, so they acquire political power and extract it from the people suffering in their “utopias.”

    Funny how lazy people are frequently the most envious.

  • bettyjwidner

    before I looked at the check of $8543 , I accept
    …that…my neighbour woz like they say truley earning money parttime on their
    apple labtop. . there sisters neighbour has done this 4 only 19 months and by now cleared the debts on their
    house and bourt a gorgeous Ford . visit this site C­a­s­h­f­i­g­.­C­O­M­

  • carpe diem 36

    to say Clinton and Class in the same sentence is not a good choice of words. These boors, classless grabbers are so distasteful that I do not know how anyone would even consider voting for them.

  • Verdes Lutz

    Correction: the Clintons could never lie convincingly. Its obvious that they have nothing to contribute. The many gullible, foolish, self-deluding people who want to believe their lies do so by choice. Pretending lies aren’t lies doesn’t make them true. The country would be better off without the Clintons anywhere near real power.

    • CapitalistPig

      You are correct, most of the Clinton ignorati blithely laugh off the Billary’s lies as part of the costs of doing political business. Bill is a rogue–but a cheery, likable rogue in the JR Ewing tradition & Hillary just schemes along like Sue Ellen doing whatever she has to do including covering for her philandering husband, putting up with the abuse & subsuming her dignity to stay in the power loop with her lecherous spouse.
      But nobody in or outside their loop is really fooled by any of it.

  • grunge_byte

    I wonder where the real advance money does come from. It doesn’t come from the book publishers who wouldn’t come across with a dime because they aren’t stupid enough to really pull that every time a stupid liberal writes a fiction book.

    “Why I don’t know what you’re talking about. I got that money from the laundry.”
    –Hillary Rodham Ben Ghazi who only ghosted one tiny chapter on Benghazi.

    “Hillary was forced to claim a stupid video by Obama so he would support her in 2016 but now he’s supporting Warren.”
    –Ed Klein.

    “Why did you bite me? I lied for you.”
    –Hillary.

    “Well you knew I was a snake.”
    –Obama.

  • chelmer

    Hey, we are living in a material world, and she is a material girl

  • VC

    The writer seems to miss the point. It is called illegal funding. Look at the limits imposed by US legislation on political donantions. Right this adavance payment was not a mistake.

  • frankensteingovernment

    I’ve always felt as though Hillary’s biggest problem is that she is a stone cold sociopath. Greed is just part of the package.

  • USARetired

    The ‘Headline’ sounds great so far!

  • jenna garnett

    Obama, Clinton, Warren, and (don’t be surprised when it happens) Valerie Jarrett. The democrats offer us nothing but closet communists who’s ambition is unlimited wealth and power, treating the citizens like criminals and squashing our Liberty with a Leviathan state, while we pay to fund it we can, which isn’t enough – and they borrow and spend trillions more. If we don’t stand up to them, at some point it will be too late.

  • ellie

    4 more years of this and the country is O.V.E.R.