Type to search

RNC Launches ‘Poor Hillary Clinton’ Website

Memo Pad Politics

RNC Launches ‘Poor Hillary Clinton’ Website


In another attempt to discredit Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign before it even exists, the Republican National Committee has launched www.poorhillaryclinton.com, a website that mocks Clinton’s comments that she was “dead broke” when she and President Bill Clinton left the White House.

“We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt,” Clinton said in an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer in June. “We had no money when we got there and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea’s education. You know, it was not easy.”

The website, which is headlined with a banner reading “Poor Hillary … It’s a hard knock life,” includes links to press items related to Clinton’s wealth. These range from news stories on students protesting her speaking fees to reports on her income. All of the headlines on the website — such as “As Universities Raise Tuition, Hillary Demands Six Figures For Speeches,” or “Hillary Demands Special Conditions For University Speeches” — take a sensational tone.

The site even features an article from the Wall Street Journal, declaring “Hillary Richer Than 99.9% Of Americans.” This is a stark change from 2012, when it was totally okay for a presidential nominee to be in the 1 percent.

It’s not that Clinton’s wealth comments aren’t problematic. They are, especially for someone who would make reducing inequality a central part of her platform. Clinton needs to find a better way to discuss her personal wealth while still showing that she cares about reducing poverty. But even if she can’t, the topic will only be a problem if she gets a serious challenger from the left. It probably won’t help Republicans much, given the overwhelming evidence that they’re not extremely concerned about the plight of the poor.

It’s not just “47 percent” comments that have hurt Republicans. They’re committed to not raising the minimum wage. They support decisions like the Hobby Lobby ruling, which makes it even harder for women to access birth control. And they’ve spent the past few years railing against Obamacare, which drastically improves access to health care. No matter who the Republican nominee is, Clinton would have an easy time making the case that she is more committed to fighting for those at the bottom of the ladder.

It’s particularly ironic that Republicans are attacking Clinton for making money, because they faced many of those attacks themselves in the last election cycle. The GOP has gone from accusing Democrats of waging class warfare to claiming that Clinton is unfit for the presidency because she’s a part of the 1 percent. Just two years ago, Newt Gingrich said that, “only the elites despise earning money,” while championing his program for poor kids to work as janitors. In 2011, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) accused President Obama of taking a “class warfare path” when he proposed a higher tax rate on the rich. And Mitt Romney called Obama’s appeal to the middle class a “campaign of division and anger and hate.”

Yet now many Republicans are trying to prove that their opponents are “out of touch.” Governor Scott Walker (R-WI) nicknamed his Democratic opponent, Mary Burke, “Millionaire Mary,” and has accused her family’s company of outsourcing jobs — exactly as the Obama campaign did to Romney in 2012. Governor Tom Corbett (R-PA) copied the playbook for his Democratic opponent, calling him “Millionaire Tom Wolf.”

AmericaRising PAC also criticized Democratic Georgia Senate candidate Michelle Nunn for laying off employees while doubling her own salary. It’s exactly the kind of attack that one is used to seeing from Democrats, not Republicans.

The accusations don’t seem to be working, though; all three Democratic candidates are doing better than expected in the polls.

AFP Photo/Thomas Samson

Interested in U.S. politics? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!



  1. Dominick Vila July 21, 2014

    The fact that Republicans are going after Hillary with a vengeance does not surprise me. Let’s face it, if she decides to run she will win by the largest margin in modern history, and the GOP knows it. What surprises me is the latest tactic the GOP is using to demonize her. That is, criticizing her success. Looks like the GOP has expanded the scope of criticisms and it now ranges from the poor to those who manage to succeed. Should we assume Hillary is part of the 47%, or is she a target because she is no longer part of that nefarious segment of our population?

    1. it_begins January 8, 2015

      ” What surprises me is the latest tactic the GOP is using to demonize her. That is, criticizing her success.”

      It worked on Romney, who has created more jobs than Hillary ever will.

  2. BiteMeLiberals July 21, 2014

    Probably won’t win when the real truth comes out on Benghazi. I hate to think of all the dumb Americans that will vote for a murderer.

    1. gmccpa July 21, 2014

      The truth is been out for quite a while. It’s just not the “truth” the RW shills have led you to believe. And obviously, as we can gather from their new plan of attacking her wealth, they are no longer counting on Benghazi, and are throwing some new stuff at the proverbial wall. Unfortunately, for them, it won’t stick. But it does smell….like desperation.

      How funny will it be if they re-run Romney…..while commenting about Clinton’s wealth.

      1. BiteMeLiberals July 22, 2014

        Another coverup.

        1. highpckts July 22, 2014

          the looney Lib are just full of coverups!! Whatever!!

        2. ralphkr July 22, 2014

          My, my, BML, do you have any idea how difficult it is to coverup something that does not exist? Especially, now that sworn testimony by people (military and civilian) who were actually involved have proven that the Republican charges are merely the product of the Republicans’ fevered imaginations.

        3. WhutHeSaid July 22, 2014

          You know, you morons tried all that ridiculous conspiracy crap in the 90’s too. It didn’t work then either.

          1. BiteMeLiberals July 26, 2014

            Dumbass, they killed four Americans.

          2. it_begins January 8, 2015

            You mean “The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”.
            -As spoken by Hillary Clinton (while attempting to deflect attention from her intern-bagging “husband”)

    2. dmhlt_66 July 22, 2014

      “… all the dumb Americans that will vote for a murderer.”

      Sorry, BiteMe, but there’ll be NO voting for murderers. The Dumbya/Cheney “They-got-blood-on-their-hands” duo can’t run again.

      It’s in our Constitution (something you’re clearly NOT familiar with).

    3. stcroixcarp July 22, 2014

      And a Benghazi day to you sir. Are you accusing Hilary of murdering the four Americans in Benghazi? George W.Bush certainly didn’t listen to his advisers about the threat of terrorism before 911. So he murdered all those Americans, and he started a war on fabricated evidence of WMDs that killed 4000 and wounded 40,000 in Iraq. Talk about an accomplished killer! Which is worse 4 or 4,00? Benghazi to you sir. Benghazi, benghazi bengh…….

      1. BiteMeLiberals July 22, 2014

        Let’s just say that Stevens asked for additional security for an entire year and each time those requests were denied.

        1. gmccpa July 22, 2014

          Let’s just say whatever bullshit pops into our heads. Good luck with that. Your take is specifically contradicted by the General in charge. Hmmm. Who should we believe? A decorated general..or a bunch of RW hacks. When all the facts turn against you….just cover your eyes and ears and yell ‘cover up’.
          From the unclassified documents released in Jan 2014.

          Despite that, Ham and others did raise the idea that the presence of Defense Department protection of diplomatic personnel in Libya – specifically of a team known as a “Site Security Team” could have made a difference in protecting Stevens on the night of the attack. Ham testified that Stevens decided not to extend the deployment of that team beyond August 2012. So they were not present when the Benghazi attack occurred.

          1. TZToronto July 22, 2014

            No, BML isn’t covering its (don’t know if it’s a he or a she) ears and yelling “cover-up!” BML is covering its ears and saying, “La la la la . . . I can’t hear you . . . La la la.” Why hasn’t BML brought up the Iran hostage crisis of ’79-’81? After all, Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, was President then, so President Obama and Hillary must have had something to do with it.

          2. DurdyDawg July 23, 2014

            Don’t know about any of that but I do know what Ronnie did to Carter concerning the hostage crisis in order to clinch a presidential win. What confuses me to no end is that Jimmy Carter was the most religiously devout president ever yet not one sect was willing to stand with him for a second term but instead waved their bibles at a divorced, second class actor who actually thought there WAS a wizard of oz.

        2. highpckts July 22, 2014

          Denied from the GOP House!! Get real! Stevens knew where he was going and what the risks were! The House was too busy obstructing everything to even think about more securtity! What benefit did it provide them?

          1. it_begins January 8, 2015

            Weird. I didn’t know the HoR made executive decisions for the State Department.

            … because they don’t.

            Are you one of those “pregans”, who only consume knowledge from propagandist sources?

  3. FT66 July 22, 2014

    I do not think the politics of “ATTACKING” works, if the Party or the Candidate wants to win the millenials”. This current generation doesn’t want to hear anything more than coming with new ideas and how will be implemented. I can’t imagine how any candidate will be received going to any campus to campaign and starts bombarding them with attacks.

  4. herchato July 23, 2014

    So far the GOP seems to be doing everything they can to make sure democrats win.

  5. it_begins January 8, 2015

    “This is a stark change from 2012, when it was totally okay for a presidential nominee to be in the 1 percent.”

    Really? Then why did Democrats attack Romney for being wealthy?
    Pick one:
    A) Turn around is fair play.
    B) Your chickens are coming home to roost.
    C) What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
    D) All of the above.

    Hillary Clinton is like Gollum, having once had the White house, she’ll do anything to get back her “Precious”.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.