By any measure, Hillary Clinton is an empty suit next to Condoleezza Rice, whose personal history is useful in realizing what Hillary’s is not.[read_more]
Condi Rice grew up in the segregated South and rose, on her own merits, to become President George H.W. Bush’s chief advisor on Soviet Union issues, helping the President successfully manage the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the reunification of Germany, and collapse of the Soviet empire. Rice, again on her own merits, rose to become Stanford University’s youngest provost ever. Later, in the administration of Bush 43, she served as National Security Advisor when the country dealt with the aftermath of 9/11, and succeeded Colin Powell as Secretary of State. In that time she managed the difficult task of holding together the U.S.-led coalition in the global war on terrorism, and her personal diplomacy is credited with repairing badly fractured relationships with key allies in the wake of the invasion of Iraq. In short, she’s a very accomplished Republican woman.
Hillary Clinton practiced law at the Rose Law Firm, best known for its involvement in the Whitewater scandal. After that, she was First Lady of Arkansas, and First Lady of the United States before claiming she left office “dead broke.” From her $1.7 million newly-purchased home in New York, Hillary Clinton then was elected to the U.S. Senate. She worked hard, and earned those votes, but no one can doubt that she would likely have never been in a position to run or win without her husband having been elected President. After an unremarkable stint in the Senate, Clinton ran for president herself in 2008, tapping deeply into her husband’s network of donors and political professionals to do so. The eventual victor in that race patched up the split between the Clintons and the new Democrat party by appointing Hillary to become the third female Secretary of State, a job where she failed miserably and left with so little in the way of accomplishments that she had to brag about how many miles she traveled.
However, there is so much subjectivity and context involved that comparing the careers and accomplishments of Rice and her successor isn’t necessarily a meaningful or fair exercise, I concede. But this next comparison is.
As reported by Politico, in 2014 Hillary Clinton was invited to speak at a fundraising event for the Boys and Girls Club of Long Beach, California. She charged the group $200,000. By contrast, when Condoleezza Rice spoke to the same group 5 years earlier, she was paid $60,000, but afterwards donated 100% of the fee back to the Boys and Girls Club.
That reveals a lot about each person’s class, and character. What else is revealing is that the Boys and Girls Club raised more money, even apart from the speaking fees, on Condi’s appearance than they did for Hillary Clinton’s. That says a lot not just about how these two women are regarded, but also about the relative charitableness of the people drawn to the respective events.
Clinton’s fees, meanwhile, were “donated” to the Clinton Foundation…alongside donations from countries and business interests seeking to profit from proximity to the Clintons or lucrative decisions influenced by the State Department:
During a broader increase in military exports under the Obama administration, more than $300 billion worth of weapons shipments were approved to 20 countries that were or have since become Clinton Foundation donors.
I have two things to say about this: First, if an ungenerous, unaccomplished matriarch of a sordid band of influence peddlers is the best the Democrats can do in 2016, I like our chances. Second, I miss Condoleezza Rice!
