This and That...

[Warph]

June 3, 2014 6:40 PM

Why Team Obama Was Blindsided by the Bergdahl Backlash

"The president and Ms. Rice seem to think that the crime
of desertion in wartime is kind of like skipping class."

Congratulations, Mr. President! And identical congrats to your sorcerer's apprentice, National Security Adviser Susan Rice. By trying to sell him as an American hero, you've turned a deserter already despised by soldiers in the know into quite possibly the most-hated individual soldier in the history of our military.

I have never witnessed such outrage from our troops.

Exhibit A: Ms. Rice. In one of the most tone-deaf statements in White House history (we're making a lot of history here), the national-security adviser, on a Sunday talk show, described Bergdahl as having served "with honor and distinction." Those serving in uniform and those of us who served previously were already stirred up, but that jaw-dropper drove us into jihad mode.

But pity Ms. Rice. Like the president she serves, she's a victim of her class. Nobody in the inner circle of Team Obama has served in uniform. It shows. That bit about serving with "honor and distinction" is the sort of perfunctory catch-phrase politicians briefly don as electoral armor. ("At this point in your speech, ma'am, devote one sentence to how much you honor the troops.")

I actually believe that Ms. Rice was kind of sincere, in her spectacularly oblivious way. In the best Manchurian Candidate manner, she said what she had been programmed to say by her political culture, then she was blindsided by the firestorm she ignited by scratching two flinty words together. At least she didn't blame Bergdahl's desertion on a video.

The president, too, appears stunned. He has so little understanding of (or interest in) the values and traditions of our troops that he and his advisers really believed that those in uniform would erupt into public joy at the news of Bergdahl's release — as D.C. frat kids did when Osama bin Laden's death was trumpeted.

Both President Obama and Ms. Rice seem to think that the crime of desertion in wartime is kind of like skipping class. They have no idea of how great a sin desertion in the face of the enemy is to those in our military. The only worse sin is to side actively with the enemy and kill your brothers in arms. This is not sleeping in on Monday morning and ducking Gender Studies 101.

But compassion, please! The president and all the president's men and women are not alone. Our media elite — where it's a rare bird who bothered to serve in uniform — instantly became experts on military justice. Of earnest mien and blithe assumption, one talking head after another announced that "we always try to rescue our troops, even deserters."

Uh, no. "Save the deserter" is a recent battle cry of the politically indoctrinated brass. For much of our history, we did make some efforts to track down deserters in wartime. Then we shot or hanged them. Or, if we were in good spirits, we merely used a branding iron to burn a large D into their cheeks or foreheads. Even as we grew more enlightened, desertion brought serious time in a military prison. At hard labor.

This is a fundamental culture clash. Team Obama and its base cannot comprehend the values still cherished by those young Americans "so dumb" they joined the Army instead of going to prep school and then to Harvard. Values such as duty, honor, country, physical courage, and loyalty to your brothers and sisters in arms have no place in Obama World. (Military people don't necessarily all like each other, but they know they can depend on each other in battle — the sacred trust Bergdahl violated.)

President Obama did this to himself (and to Bergdahl). This beautifully educated man, who never tires of letting us know how much smarter he is than the rest of us, never stopped to consider that our troops and their families might have been offended by their commander-in-chief staging a love-fest at the White House to celebrate trading five top terrorists for one deserter and featuring not the families of those soldiers (at least six of them) who died in the efforts to find and free Bergdahl, but, instead, giving a starring role on the international stage to Pa Taliban, parent of a deserter and a creature of dubious sympathies (that beard on pops ain't a tribute to ZZ Top). How do you say "outrageous insult to our vets" in Pashto?

Nor, during the recent VA scandal, had the president troubled himself to host the families of survivors of those vets who died awaiting care. No, the warmest attention our president has ever paid to a "military family" was to Mr. and Mrs. Bergdahl.

(I will refrain from criticism of the bumptious attempts to cool the flames of this political conflagration by Secretary Hagel: I never pick on the weak.)

What is to be done? Behind the outrage triggered by Team Obama's combination of cynicism and obliviousness (Bergdahl was so ill we had to set those terrorists free immediately, without notifying Congress, but now he's chugging power shakes in a military hospital . . . and all this just happened to come at the peak of the VA scandal . . . ), military members don't really want to lynch Bergdahl. But they want justice.

Our military leaders need to rediscover their moral courage and honor our traditions, our regulations, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. We need a fresh, unprejudiced 15-6 investigation (the military equivalent of a grand jury). We already know, as the military has known since the first 24 hours after Bergdahl abandoned his post, that sufficient evidence exists for a court-martial, but it's important to do this by the numbers.

It's hard to believe that the resulting court-martial would not find Bergdahl guilty of desertion (although there will be heavy White House pressure to reduce the charge to Absent Without Leave, or AWOL, status, a lesser offense). If he is convicted, I for one do not want him to go to prison. I'm sure he has paid and paid for betraying his comrades, quite possibly suffering brutal sexual violence. But if he is found guilty, he needs to be formally reduced to the rank of private, stripped of all privileges and entitlements (the taxpayer should not pay for a deserter's lifelong health care — Bergdahl's book and film deals can cover that), and he should be given the appropriate prison sentence, which would then be commuted by the president. Thereafter, let Mr. Bergdahl go home and live with himself.

As for President Obama, how about just one word of thanks to the families of those fallen soldiers you sent out to find Bowe Bergdahl?

— By Fox News Strategic Analyst, Lt.Col. Ralph Peters (Retired)

[Warph]

(The POW release was orchestrated to be a feel-good moment.  But now the Obama administration is dealing with a major scandal.  Not just because 5 dangerous terrorist leaders were released from Gitmo.  Not just because the president broke the law in not informing Congress.  But mainly because America's troops are in an uproar about all of this attention being given to an anti-American deserter whose dereliction of duty reportedly cost the lives of six soldiers)

June 8, 2014 11:00 PM

Obama and the Mockery of Honor

Benedict Arnold chose to put on the uniform, too. Did he serve with "honor and distinction"?

If a soldier who volunteered to serve in the military rapes or murders someone while in uniform, has he served honorably? Has Bradley Manning, who voluntarily joined the military and then betrayed his country by turning over hundreds of thousands of documents to WikiLeaks, served honorably? Did Benedict Arnold, another volunteer, serve with "honor and distinction"?

According to the logic of our national-security adviser, Susan Rice, they all did. Merely because they volunteered in the first place. Lieutenant Calley of My Lai Massacre fame? "Honor and distinction."

Ms. Rice is aggressively stupid, immaculately clueless, and a disgrace to our system of government, but one does have to admire her tenacity. Late last week, Rice tried to extract herself from her effort to sell Private Bowe Bergdahl as a hero who served, as she had put in on ABC's This Week, "with honor and distinction." (The rank of private is correct, in that his promotions were phony.) In her attempted walkback, Rice claimed that anyone who ever signed on the dotted line had served honorably: "What I was referring to was the fact that this was a young man who volunteered to serve his country in uniform at a time of war. That, in and of itself, is a very honorable thing."

If this administration cannot embrace our military, might it not at least stop insulting those in uniform? No soldier is finally judged to have served "with honor and distinction" until his or her service is complete. There's a glaringly obvious reason for that.

Of course, we've heard a series of increasingly ugly comments from White House staffers as their lionization of Bergdahl has collapsed. Administration hacks who have never served our country in any useful capacity stage-whispered that right-wing activists were "swiftboating" the reputed deserter. In fact, it was the other way around: The real character assassinations were launched from the White House, and they targeted soldiers from Bergdahl's platoon who had, indeed, served with honor and distinction. Those courageous young men stood up for justice, refusing to allow the administration's blithe betrayal of military values to prevail. In response, White House loyalists insinuated that Bergdahl's comrades in arms might be psychopathic. This is Chicago politics leveled against truly honorable soldiers — yet more evidence of this president's disdain for those in uniform.

Then, on Sunday, the New York Times front page — once again indistinguishable from its self-abusing editorial pages — snarked that Bergdahl's unit was "known for its troubles" and that (Lord preserve us!) the soldiers in Bergdahl's battalion, on dangerous duty at a harsh outpost, weren't always properly attired. Well, ending the draft was great for our military, but dreadful for the country. Anyone who had served even a couple of months as a private at Fort Hood would grasp that soldiers sweating on sunbaked ground in eastern Afghanistan generally do not display the spit and polish of the Old Guard drill team performing in Washington, D.C.

And perhaps those bold reporters from the New York Times would like to criticize the imperfect field uniforms of SEAL Team Six or our Special Forces? To their faces?

Doubling down on its shamelessness, the same front page applauded Obama for personally ending a failed strategy in Afghanistan — without bothering to mention that the truly catastrophic, troop-killing "strategy" was Obama's own. The revisionism is worthy of the heyday of Chairman Mao.

— By Fox News Strategic Analyst, Lt.Col. Ralph Peters (Retired)

[Warph]

Emails before capture paint POW as anti-American deserter: 'I am ashamed to be an American,' 'America is disgusting'

June 2, 2014 by Tom Tillison

The release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five Taliban combatants held at Guantanamo Bay has dominated the news cycle, but so too have the controversial circumstances leading up to his disappearance.

Accounts from fellow soldiers that Bergdahl went missing of his own volition have persisted in the five years since he disappeared, and emails sent to his parents beforehand suggest he may have been contemplating desertion.

"I am ashamed to be an American," he wrote in his final email to his parents, a 2012 Rolling Stone article reported. "And the title of U.S. soldier is just the lie of fools. I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting."

POW dad's bizarre deleted tweet raises questions about Obama's prisoner swap.

The email indicated Bergdahl had lost faith in the U.S. effort in Afghanistan.

"I am sorry for everything here," he said. "These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid."

CBS News reported that Bergdahl mailed home boxes containing his uniform and other belongings before he disappeared.

"The future is too good to waste on lies," he further wrote. "And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be American. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting."

The Associated Press and CBS News reported that the authenticity of the emails cannot be independently verified, and Bergdahl's parents have not commented on them.

According to Rolling Stone, Bob Bergdahl responded to his son's final email, complete with the subject line: "OBEY YOUR CONSCIENCE!"

[Warph]

In Regaining Bergdahl, America Lost Six Soldiers Who Never Deserted

The controversy surrounding President Obama's efforts to free Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl has rattled the country, as fellow soldiers insist Bergdahl deserted and their lives were put on the line to find him. Those who have not spoken-- who cannot speak-- are the six soldiers who ultimately gave their lives in the search for Bergdahl.
The six men who died--Staff Sergeant Clayton Bowen, Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss, 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews, Pfc. Morris Walker, Staff Sergeant Michael Murphrey, and Pfc. Matthew Michael Martinek--were part of the same command unit as Bergdahl and died on missions related to his search.

Bowen and Walker were killed on the same mission by a roadside bomb in 2009 while out searching for Bergdahl. Curtis was killed in the same part of the country, Paktika Province, Afghanistan, by gunshot wound during an attack in which he was supporting Afghan security forces. Andrews and Martinek also died in Paktika, the victims of separate improvised explosive device attacks on their vehicles. Martinek lived for a week after the attack before finally yielding to his wounds. Murphrey also died after being wounded by an explosive.

The parents of some of these lost soldiers have begun to demand explanations. The Andrews family told the Daily Mail that the government told them Darryn died "while hunting a Taliban commander," not on the search for Bergdahl. Meanwhile, soldiers who survived are beginning to discuss the details of the Bergdahl case, in particular the way they were discouraged from questioning decisions on the search for Bergdahl and threatened over speaking of the case.

The New York Times has already begun to question whether the soldiers--all in the same unit as Bergdahl, all dying in Paktika province--really died on Bergdahl's behalf. The paper claims that, in war, facts are "murky," based on records. Those who need no records, the soldiers who were there during the search, argue there is nothing murky about it.

"Bergdahl did not 'lag behind on a patrol,' as was cited in news reports at the time. There was no patrol that night. Bergdahl was relieved from guard duty, and instead of going to sleep, he fled the outpost on foot. He deserted," writes Nathan Bradley Bethea, who served with Bergdahl. This should be enough to quell any disagreement on what Bergdahl did and what the costs were, but Bethea is not alone. Multiple soldiers with first-hand knowledge agree that Bergdahl deserted, and his actions cost lives. There is no absolving Bergdahl in the eyes of the parents of those lost, and there should not be in the eyes of the American people, who lost loyal protectors in Bergdahl's name.

In gaining Bergdahl, the United States did not only lose six of its finest--it lost control of five of Afghanistan's most dangerous Taliban leaders, now handed over to the arms of a welcoming nation and, contrary to President Obama's claim, allowed to move freely within Qatar before fully regaining their freedom. While the number of soldiers who died in the search for Bergdahl is a discrete and easily-recoverable statistic, the number that died to find and capture these Taliban officials remains a mystery. Their parents will not get the opportunity to tell the world they died in vain, on missions to contain enemies the Obama administration made a clear choice to liberate.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/06/04/In-Regaining-Bergdahl-America-Lost-Six-Soldiers-Who-Never-Deserted

[Warph]

Obama Admin Official: What If Bergdahl's Fellow Soldiers Were Psychopaths? UPDATE: Apologizes

by Charlie Spiering 5 Jun 2014

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Obama administration official upset with the direction of the Bergdhal story voiced his concern on Twitter on Wednesday, floating a theory that put Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in a more sympathetic light--and his fellow soldiers as part of the problem.

The American people, he argued, were too quick to jump to conclusions about Bergdahl after his fellow soldiers spoke out about his disappearance.

"Here's the thing about Bergdahl and the Jump-to-Conclusions mats: What if his platoon was long on psychopaths and short on leadership?" asked Brandon Friedman, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at Department of Housing and Urban Development, in a series of Twitter posts.

"What if he grew disillusioned with what he saw, didn't trust his leadership, and walked off?," he continued. "Legal? No. Worthy of sympathy? Maybe. If that were the case, the soldiers in his platoon would have all the more reason to smear him publicly now."

Friedman, a former infantry officer in the Army, has been awarded two Bronze Stars for his service in Afghanistan and Iraq. He is also the author of The War I Always Wanted, a book that details his disillusionment with the U.S. Army and the decision to go to war in Iraq.

Friedman insisted that his theory was "not out of the realm of possibility" and called for Americans to withhold judgment until they heard both sides of the story.

"I'm not a fan of such speculation, but this story could not be more unbalanced - with so many premature calls of 'traitor,'" he concluded.

Friedman has weighed in on the Bergdahl case in several other posts, in which he scorns critics.

"One reason why the Bergdahl thing is so overheated: Many Americans--including military 'supporters'--have a cartoonish view of the military," he said on Wednesday. "Actual military people, specifically those who served with--and criticized--Bergdahl, are satisfied he was returned safely."

"[T]he loudest, most venomous commentary on the topic comes from the least informed," he concluded.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

**UPDATE**

  Charlie Spiering        ✔ @charliespiering
Follow Looks like Brandon Friedman -@BFriedmanDC - is trying to hide his association with the Obama administration...
6:19 AM - 5 Jun 2014
256 Retweets 52 favorites Reply

------------------------------------------------------------------------

**UPDATE 2**
Friedman did not return calls made by Breitbart News to his office at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Friedman, a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, has a long history of anti-war activism after he left the military in 2004.

Friedman delivered the Democratic response to President George W. Bush's radio address in 2007, blaming the president for putting troops in the middle of a "civil war" in Iraq.

"The fact is, the Iraq war has kept us from devoting assets we need to fight terrorists worldwide -- as evidenced by the fact that Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and al-Qaida has been able to rebuild," Friedman said. "We need an effective offensive strategy that takes the fight to our real enemies abroad. And the best way to do that is to get our troops out of the middle of this civil war in Iraq."

He was also a key spokesman accusing Rush Limbaugh of calling veterans who opposed the war "phony soldiers." appearing on multiple MSNBC segments criticizing the conservative talk radio show host.

Friedman called Limbaugh a "hypocritical draft-dodger" in a Daily Kos piece slamming his comments. Friedman has a history of displaying disgust at conservatives on Twitter.



**UPDATE 3**
By Thursday afternoon, Freidman apologized for his tweets:

While I just wanted to make the point that the public should wait before passing judgment, I unfortunately used my own poor judgment in choosing inappropriate language that many view as disparaging to U.S. service members," he said in a statement to Buzzfeed reporter Evan McMorris-Santoro. "That was certainly not my intent and I regret making the comments on my personal account in such a way. I apologize to those with whom I work in the Administration, at HUD, and, most importantly, to any service members who took offense.

[Warph]

June 10, 2014

Does Fox News Cause Ignorance, or Do Ignorant Viewers Prefer Fox News?

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118066/brookings-survey-fox-news-home-most-conservative-republicans

A new study reveals the gap between the channel's fans and the rest of America
By Danny Vinik

Immediately before the presidential election in 2012, Fox News viewers were certain of one thing: Mitt Romney was going win. It didn't matter that poll after poll had President Barack Obama winning by a comfortable margin. Conservative pundits Michael Barone, George Will and Dick Morris all expected Romney to earn more than 300 electoral votes. Even after Obama's victory was certain on election night, Karl Rove wouldn't admit defeat.

For those of us reading Nate Silver and other election forecasters, those conservative predictions were laughably bad. And election night proved us correct: Obama won with 332 electoral votes. The millions of Republicans who were shocked and disappointed on election night were not let down by their hubris, although it undoubtedly played a role. The real fault lies with conservative media system, which had become an echo chamber of right wing talking points that did not reflect the national landscape.

In the aftermath of Obama's reelection, smart conservatives argued that the right wing media was putting their party at a disadvantage by obscuring the truth. "You haven't just been misinformed about the horse race," the Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf wrote. "Since the very beginning of the election cycle, conservative media has been failing you." While Friedersdorf hoped the shellacking would be an awakening for the party, he doubted it would be. Nineteen months later, Friedersdorf is looking prophetic: A new Brookings poll shows just how out of touch Fox News viewers are with both their fellow Republicans and the rest of the country. They learned nothing from 2012.

The Brookings survey, conducted along with the Public Religion Research Institute, surveyed 1,538 adults focused on immigration reform, but also included questions on their news preferences and a collection of other policy issues. The focus on new preferences allowed the researchers to divide the Republican respondents into two groups: those that most trust Fox News "to provide accurate information about politics and current events" and those that most trust a different network. The former, whom the authors label "Fox News Republicans," made up 53 percent of Republican respondents. "Non-Fox News Republicans" made up the remaining 47 percent. This was an easy split to make, but for Democrats there was no clear divide on news preferences. Thirty one percent of Democrats most trusted broadcast news stations (ABC, NBC, and CBS) while another 26 percent chose CNN. Smaller percentages chose public television (14 percent), MSNBC (10 percent) and the Daily Show with Jon Stewart (9 percent).

In other words, the Republican Party is extremely polarized among its news choices while the Democratic Party is scattered among a number of networks.

This makes a huge difference for the policy preferences among Republicans. For instance, 42 percent of Fox News Republicans support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. For Non-Fox News Republicans, it's 60 percent. That puts the views of Non-Fox News Republicans closer to those of Independents (61 percent support a path to citizenship) and Democrats (70 percent).

The difference is even starker in terms of views of immigrants. Sixty percent of Fox News Republicans say immigrants are a burden, compared to just 33 percent who believe they strengthen the country. For Non-Fox News Republicans, the numbers are nearly reversed: 56 percent believe immigrants strengthen the country, compared with 38 percent who believe they are a burden. As the chart below shows, the views of Non-Fox News Republicans are once again closer to the views of all Americans than Fox News Republicans:

A similar dynamic exists for Republican views on whether immigrants threaten American customs and values. In fact, on every issue, Fox News Republicans are more conservative than Non-Fox News Republicans (click to enlarge):

That makes Fox News the home of the Republican Party's most conservative members. But those members would have found a home somewhere. It's telling that they have done so at the Republican Party's preeminent media source, but it does not disqualify the network from delivering factually correct news. Except the Brookings survey also finds that Fox News Republicans are the most uninformed on immigration issues as well. Sixty four percent of Fox News Republicans wrongly believe that illegal immigration has increased during the past few years. Adults who most trust the broadcast nations do not excel at that question either: 46 percent believe that illegal immigration has increased. But that's much better than Fox News viewers.

That doesn't mean Fox News is at fault for their viewers' ignorance. It's impossible to determine causality from this survey. Fox News may attract extremely conservative viewers or it may make conservative viewers more extreme. It's likely a combination of the two. "It is not possible from this data to offer a precise solution to the chicken-and-egg question — whether the more important fact is that those with very conservative views are already attracted to Fox or whether Fox turns its viewers into conservatives," the authors write. "What is clear is that conservative are drawn to Fox, and that Fox may, in turn, reinforce and perhaps harden conservative views."

Those hardened views are at odds not only with the rest of America, but also with the remaining 47 percent of the Republican Party who trust other news sources. In turn, Fox News viewers receive a warped view of the political landscape. They—and Republican congressmen—may not consider Fox News an extreme news source. They may think it represents the center of the GOP. Under that mindset, presidential candidates should adopt a policy platform that appeals to the average Fox News viewer. But that's a mistake when the average Fox News member is an extreme conservative. Instead of adopting a position that can garner support from the entire political spectrum of the Republican Party, they have chosen one that turns off moderate Republicans and appeals directly to extreme conservatives. Those moderate Republicans may ultimately vote for the GOP, but this strategy almost certainly alienates independent voters.

This makes the Fox News echo chamber a hazard for the party. It creates extreme candidates under the guise that they are electable, builds up a false narrative that they are in fact electable and then acts surprised when that narrative doesn't play itself out. In 2012, this storyline was on full display. In the aftermath of that defeat, Fox and the Republican Party had the chance to fix it by reorganizing the station's content with more moderate hosts and more accurate coverage. They have chosen not to do so—and it's only going to continue to hurt them in 2016.

[Ross]

$50 Lesson

I asked my friends little girl what she wanted to be when she grew up, She said she wanted to be President of the United States. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there. So I asked her, "If you were Preident, what woud be the first thing you would do?" She replied, "I'd give houses and food to all the homeless people." Her parents beamed!

"Wow... what a wonderful goal." I told her. "But you don't have to wait till you are President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn and pull the weeds and sweep my driveway, and I will pay you $50. Then I will take you over to the grocery store where a homeless guy hangs out and you can give him the $50 dollars to use towards food and a new house."

She thought that over for a few seconds, and then looked me straight in the eye and asked,  " Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work and you can just pay him the $50 to use towards food and a new house?" I said, "Welcome to the real world!"

Her parents still aren't talking to me. LOL

[Warph]

Obuma Admin Says Cantor's Support For Amnesty Had Nothing To Do With His Defeat

(Horse hockey... and fire isn't hot)

Via NRO:
A spokesman for President Obama rushed to assure House Republicans that Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) didn't actually lose because of his gestures toward Democrats on immigration reform.

"Cantor's problem wasn't his position on immigration reform, it was his lack of a position," Obama advisor Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, citing the success of Senator Lindsay Graham (R., S.C.).  "Graham wrote and passed a bill and is winning big."

Cantor's campaign sent out direct mail pieces ahead of the election maintaining that he was "stopping the Obama-Reid plan to give illegal aliens amnesty," but challenger Dave Brat accused him of supporting "amnesty" based on his support for legislation such as the KIDS Act, which would give citizenship to children brought to the country illegally.

"Where else would these kids go? Again, they've been brought here as a minor in many instances having no idea what was going on, knowing no other place than America as home," Cantor said during a press conference last July.

[Warph]

(Liberal) Reuters Poll: Obama's Approval Rating Falls To Just 37.5%

(Oh... the heartache)

[Warph]

Aide Defends Hillary's "Broke" Comment: They "Have A Life And A Set Of Expectations That Are Different" From The Middle Class

(She's an elitist?  That's their defense?)

Via Weekly Standard:
"There's nothing fair with anybody who would insinuate that Hillary Clinton doesn't understand the struggle of a middle class family. She certainly grew up with one. And she gave a statement of fact when President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton left the White House, they were dead broke. Now, they have a life and a set of expectations that are different, and they've been fortunate to make some money."