If Hillary Clinton runs for president in 2016, it’s a pretty good bet that she won’t be getting the vote of liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who on Sunday criticized Clinton’s daughter Chelsea for what she said was her “money grab.”
The Clintons’ finances have come under scrutiny lately, after Hillary said last month that the family was “dead broke” when they left the White House, and that they weren’t “truly well off” despite earning over $100 million since then.
Dowd took Chelsea to task for collecting $75,000 for speeches of dubious value:
There’s something unseemly about it, making one wonder: Why on earth is she worth that much money? Why, given her dabbling in management consulting, hedge-funding and coattail-riding, is an hour of her time valued at an amount that most Americans her age don’t make in a year? (Median household income in the United States is $53,046.)
If she really wants to be altruistic, let her contribute the money to some independent charity not designed to burnish the Clinton name as her mother ramps up to return to the White House and as she herself drops a handkerchief about getting into politics.
Or let her speak for free. After all, she is in effect going to candidate school. No need to get paid for it, too.
Dowd was also less than enthusiastic about Chelsea’s gig at NBC News, of which she said Clinton was “wildly overpaid” for a nepotistic job as a soft-focus correspondent.
Does anyone even remember what Clinton has reported on for the more than $25,000 a minute she was paid by NBC News?
Her $600,000-a-year contract is now a month-to-month deal, but she wouldn’t be there at all if her last name wasn’t Clinton.
While the Clinton’s laugh all the way to the bank, the public is left to wonder if any of the Clintons are truly concerned about income inequality and other liberal causes, or just interested in building their own personal wealth and empire.