Hillary Clinton's third crack at addressing questions about her fabulous wealth didn't go much better than her first two attempts. You'll recall that she told Dianne Sawyer in her Hard Choices debut interview that she and her husband were "dead broke" upon leaving the White House, and that they "struggled" to afford mortgages on their houses (plural). A Washington Post fact check exposed this posture as a whopper of a stretch, particularly in light of Mrs. Clinton's enormous book advance, agreed to before her husband left office, and highly generous home-buying help from a wealthy crony, who's now the governor of Virginia. Hillary followed that performance up with a less-than-inspiring "clarification" on Good Morning America, fueling incredulous questions from the commentariat about whether she'd prepared at all to reconcile her family's "one-percenter" affluence with her class warfare agenda. Now comes this line from an interview with The Guardian, a lefty British paper, which has even some Democrats doing a double-take:
America's glaring income inequality is certain to be a central bone of contention in the 2016 presidential election. But with her huge personal wealth, how could Clinton possibly hope to be credible on this issue when people see her as part of the problem, not its solution? "But [the American people] don't see me as part of the problem," she protests, "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," she says, letting off another burst of laughter. If past form is any guide, she must be finding my question painful.