CNN's Bolduan Rips Conservative Super PAC's 'Sexist' Jab at Hillary's 'Shopping Sprees'
On Monday's New Day, CNN's Kate Bolduan blasted conservative super PAC America Rising for a supposedly bigoted attack on Hillary Clinton. The group recently attacked the former secretary of state as being out of touch: "If Hillary is going to run for president, she might be advised to take a lengthy sabbatical from her $200,000 per pop speaking tour and private shopping sprees at Bergdorfs to try and reconnect with what's happening back here on Earth."
Bolduan asserted that America Rising's statement was a "stupid, sexist remark on a shopping spree that has nothing to do with...or shouldn't have anything to do with" the recent criticism of Clinton for her "dead broke" claim. [MP3 audio available here; video below]
Bolduan turned to Daily Beast editor-in-chief John Avlon for his take on the ongoing controversy over Mrs. Clinton's recent gaffes about her family's wealth. The anchor pointed out the former senator's assertion to The Guardian that she's not "truly well off," and asked Avlon, "What do you make of this explanation?" The CNN contributor replied by downplaying the remarks:
JOHN AVLON, DAILY BEAST EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Oh, sure she did. Yeah, because there's a narrative that Republicans are trying to push – knowing that hypocrisy is the unforgivable sin in politics – saying that the Clintons are out of touch; that they've become wealthy; that they want to keep the estate tax, but they want to avoid it themselves.
Look, you see the quote in full context – this is not the end of the world. What she's trying to say, is she and Bill Clinton are self-made super rich. But it's the not 'truly well off' that indicates that hermetically-sealed environment, when people run for president, they spend most of their time with billionaires, who are raising the money. This is true on both sides of the aisle, and Republicans are trying, at the beginning of this book tour, to just push, push, push any way they can to nudge her numbers down, to make her look vulnerable; and, in effect, make her – influence her – and hope – they hope to have her not run for president. That's their best scenario.
Bolduan then brought up the super PAC's supposedly "stupid, sexist" attack, and continued by wondering, "Where does everybody else shop? Who knows? We don't care, because we don't talk about it when men are doing it." She then asked her guest, "Is this a valid point the Republicans are making?" The Daily Beast editor answered, in part, that "what they're trying to do is take away credibility from Hillary Clinton when it comes to associating with her own past and the middle class. It's a tactic you're going to see them continue to hammer away at."
Later in the segment, the CNN anchor raised a supposed specter from the 2012 presidential race: "How much of this is lessons learned, maybe, or still it hurts a little bit from the 2012 election, where Mitt Romney really could not shake the image that was created for him by Democrats – that he was too wealthy, too out of touch – didn't pay his taxes, didn't pay enough taxes?" Avlon replied that "this is absolutely Republicans getting revenge for that – trying to tar Hillary with that particular brush."
One wonders if Bolduan would have reacted the same way to the left's outcry in the fall of 2008 over the $150,000 the RNC spent on Sarah Palin's clothing. Then-anchor Campbell Brown called out the "double standard" in an October 23, 2008 segment on her CNN program:
CAMPBELL BROWN: ...[A] lot of sniping and a lot of stories today about Sarah Palin's clothes. Politico.com reports that the Republican National Committee spent more than $150,000 on clothes, hair, and makeup for Palin on the campaign trail....My issue: there is an incredible double standard here, and we're ignoring a very simple reality. Women are judged based on their appearance far, far more than men. This is a statement of fact. There has been plenty of talk and plenty written about Sarah Palin's jackets, her hair, her looks. Sound familiar? There was plenty of talk and plenty written about Hillary Clinton's looks, hair, pantsuits. Compare that to the attention given to Barack Obama's $1,500 suits or John McCain's $520 Ferragamo shoes. There is no comparison.
The transcript of the relevant portion of the John Avlon segment from Monday's New Day on CNN:
[CNN Graphic: "Hillary Says She's Unlike The 'Truly Well Off'"]
KATE BOLDUAN: Hillary Clinton fending off new attacks this morning, after more controversial comments about her personal wealth. Speaking to The Guardian newspaper, the potential 2016 contender says this: 'They don't see me as part of the problem because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we've done it through dint of hard work.' This, of course, weeks after she told Diane Sawyer that she and President Clinton were 'dead broke,' in her words, when they left the White House. Now, Republicans are hot on her trail.
Let's discuss with John Avlon, Daily Beast executive editor and CNN contributor. So, what do you make of this explanation? Because she clearly – she came out and tried to offer an explanation even afterwards. She knew it was a gaffe after the first time-
JOHN AVLON, DAILY BEAST EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Oh, sure she did. Yeah, because there's a narrative that Republicans are trying to push – knowing that hypocrisy is the unforgivable sin in politics – saying that the Clintons are out of touch; that they've become wealthy; that they want to keep the estate tax, but they want to avoid it themselves.
Look, you see the quote in full context – this is not the end of the world. What she's trying to say, is she and Bill Clinton are self-made super rich. But it's the not 'truly well off' that indicates that hermetically-sealed environment, when people run for president, they spend most of their time with billionaires, who are raising the money. This is true on both sides of the aisle, and Republicans are trying, at the beginning of this book tour, to just push, push, push any way they can to nudge her numbers down, to make her look vulnerable; and, in effect, make her – influence her – and hope – they hope to have her not run for president. That's their best scenario.
BOLDUAN: And so, Republicans are jumping on it. Here's what one super PAC – one GOP conservative super PAC, America Rising – they put out a statement and said this: 'If Hillary is going to run for president, she might be advised to take – to take a lengthy sabbatical from her $200,000 per pop speaking tour and private shopping sprees at Bergdorfs to try and reconnect with what's happening back here on Earth.'
Despite the – I'm just gonna say – stupid, sexist remark on a shopping spree that has nothing to do with this – or shouldn't have anything to do with this-
AVLON: I have to say, they went full Bergdorf there-
BOLDUAN: Well, we don't – you don't have to take (Avlon laughs) – where does – where does everybody else shop? Who knows? We don't care, because we don't talk about it when men are doing it.
AVLON: Right.
BOLDUAN: Is this a valid point the Republicans are making?
AVLON: It – it's-
BOLDUAN: Or is it a valid political point that they're going to push?
AVLON: Opportunistic? Well, absolutely yes to the second point you just made, right? But what they're trying to do is political judo, right? I mean, John McCain, Mitt Romney got hammered for not knowing how many houses they have. We're still – we're nations (sic) in recovery, but there's still this massive gap between the super rich and even the working wealthy – let alone the middle class.
And so, what they're trying to do is take away credibility from Hillary Clinton when it comes to associating with her own past and the middle class. It's a – it's a tactic you're going to see them continue to hammer away at. Whenever there's even a small gap that reinforces that narrative, they're going to keep chipping away at it because that's the – that's the way they want to level the playing field – not they necessarily have a candidate or alternative better on these issues.
[CNN Graphic: "GOP Blasts Hillary's $200K Paycheck & Shopping Sprees"]
BOLDUAN: Is it too early to be having – I mean, it seems-
AVLON: Oh, dear God, yes-
BOLDUAN: Right now like they're fighting it out like we're in the heat of the campaign. You say one thing that we could jump on, we're gonna jump on and attack it as hypocritical. Is it too early to be doing that, though?
AVLON: Yes. Yes, it is – because guess what? We're chasing bright shiny objects. There are primary elections in the United States tomorrow that have massive implications for this year's elections. And yet, we naturally gravitate towards 2016 because they're the celebrities. They're the heavyweights – the top of the cart. We're ignoring what's right beneath our noses today and tomorrow.
BOLDUAN: How much of this is lessons learned, maybe, or still it hurts a little bit from the 2012 election, where Mitt Romney really could not shake the image that was created for him by Democrats – that he was too wealthy, too out of touch – didn't pay his taxes, didn't pay enough taxes?
AVLON: I mean, this is absolutely Republicans getting revenge for that – trying to tar Hillary with that particular brush. There's a smart way to have that conversation as a country, which is to say that let's focus on effective tax rates; let's focus on tax simplification; the lobbyists who larded up the tax code with loopholes, so that the super rich can hire accountants to lower their effective rate to 14 percent, like Mitt Romney-
BOLDUAN: Republicans and Democrats actually want to have this conversation. There was a healthy conversation going on on Capitol Hill – that has since fallen away – but it was actually happening at one point.
AVLON: Briefly, briefly – but every time you talk about lowering rates and closing loopholes, all the lobbyists get up in arms, and they say, no, no, no – we worked real hard to put those loopholes in there; don't you dare touch it. So, we can have a smart conversation, or we can play gotcha politics. I think we're gonna probably tend towards gotcha politics, which is sad-
BOLDUAN: It's because – well, because it's easier.
AVLON: Absolutely.
— Matthew Balan is a News Analyst at the Media Research Center. Follow Matthew Balan on Twitter.
