Intellectual Conservative Logo

We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Links we recommend
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons

Martha and Hillary’s Parallel Universe
by Doug Schmitz
30 June 2003

Given her questionable financial dealings, shouldn’t Hillary be the one sporting an orange jumpsuit?

The dustup from the Martha Stewart scandal now being played out against the backdrop of Hillary Clinton’s bogus book debut provides a strikingly stark contrast between two Democratic divas who share equally ruthless personalities and suspiciously criminal backgrounds. Yet one of these women hasn’t quite enjoyed the same free pass from the cherry pickers of the leftist media the other has consistently been granted over the years.

Paradoxically, while Stewart was recently indicted on charges ranging from insider trading and conspiracy, to obstruction of justice, and securities fraud from a questionable stock tip, Hillary’s financial windfall from a dubious late 1970s cattle futures trade – standing as one of many glaring examples of Hillary’s own improprieties – has left her virtually unscathed by the law as well as her liberal media sycophants.

This clash has ultimately revealed the leftist media’s divided loyalties between two strong, liberal female titans who have shown their unwavering loyalty to the Left’s cause.

Only this time, in a bizarre turn of events, while the leftist media have pruned Martha from its own orchard, they still leave Hillary rotting and withering on their tree, only to eventually spoil the entire grove.

Inevitably, this should beg the obvious question (that notably wasn’t asked in Barbara Walters’ softball interview): Given her questionable financial dealings, shouldn’t Hillary be the one sporting an orange jumpsuit?

Shouldn’t Hillary be swapping recipes in the same cell with Martha if the ImClone charges stick; especially knowing what we already know about the Clintons' hugely chronicled and often suppressed ties to Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Salomon Smith Barney, Citigroup and untold others?

What’s more, while Stewart’s guilt still hangs in the balance, the collective question every clear thinking person also should be asking is: What’s wrong with this picture?

But to fully capture the bitter irony, as well as the utter hypocrisy of the Martha-Hillary scenario, both women must first be analyzed in light of each one’s alleged crimes and how the leftist media has chosen to treat them.


In December 2001, the former CEO of Martha Stewart Living OmniMedia and chief stockholder reportedly sold almost 4,000 shares of ImClone Systems stock for nearly $230,000 the day before the FDA rejected ImClone’s application for a cancer drug, reported. As a result, the stock price has plummeted.

But Stewart recently said she had “standing oral orders to sell the stock when it dropped below $60 a share,” which, in the end, only netted a mere $45,000.

Moreover, Stewart claimed she was being targeted for investigation because of her financial contributions to the Democratic Party, and that GOP members with alleged ties to similar scandals were not being investigated. Stewart has since pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Interestingly, ImClone founder Samuel Waksal, who also sold stock before the FDA’s announcement, pleaded guilty last year to charges involving insider trading and was sentenced June 10 to seven years.

Assistant Merrill Lynch broker Douglas Faneuil also pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about the reasons behind the ImClone sale. According to the Washington Post, Faneuil told investigators he informed Stewart that the Waksal family was selling the stock before she decided to sell the 4,000 shares.

Stewart’s attorneys have said in a statement that the main reason for the charges was for “publicity purposes because Martha Stewart is a celebrity?  Is it because she is a woman who has successfully competed in a man’s business world by virtue of her talent, hard work and demanding standards? Is it because the government would like to be able to define securities fraud as whatever it wants it to be?”

But in a news conference, Manhattan’s U.S. Attorney James Comey claimed that “Martha Stewart is being prosecuted not because of who she is but because of what she did.”

Certainly, the leftist media have expressed an uncharacteristic schadenfreude over Martha’s plight. From caricatures of Martha designing a jail cell with drapes, and her stepping out on a ledge of her corporate building with a live audience yelling at her to jump, to providing a catered spread for the Energy and Commerce Committee members, even leftist writers seemed to have turned against the ultra-liberal domestic diva.

In fact, left-leaning CNN’s June 25, 2002 story opened: “Martha Stewart’s image has taken a beating lately. The homemaking queen, once associated with linens, housewares, decorating recommendations and perfectly crafted pastries, has found herself tarred with the scandal brush currently smearing Wall Street.”

CBS News even wondered if consumers would “still want the tarnished Martha Stewart brand.”

But not so with the prosecution-dodging Hillary and her merry band of Clinton loyalists who have managed to keep their leftist propaganda growing and the sympathy flowing.


When Hillary was said to have “made a killing” with a 1978 cattle futures trade tip she received, the one burning question the leftist media never bothered to ask was whether the $100,000 windfall she made from a mere $1,000 was the typical profit the average investor might have made if it were done legally in the market.

According to the New American, only the “terminally gullible believe” Hillary did it legally. The publication also revealed that the odds of Hillary making such a return were “24 chances in a million.”

The New York Post went as far as to say: “There is no way that the commodity exchange or a broker would permit a novice speculator to control $280,000 worth of cattle with a skimpy investment of $1,000. Not, that is, unless a friend, guardian or partner guaranteed her investment.”

Actually, a friend of Hillary’s did help her get the questionable boon – a trader by the name of Robert L. “Red” Bone, who had his trader’s license revoked the previous year. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange had accused Bone of allocating trades to investors after it was determined who won or lost in their commodities play, called “straddling,” which is an illegal practice in the market.

According to Charles B. Babcock of the Washington Post, Bone, who ran the Springville, Ark.-based Ray E. Friedman and Co. (Refco), “allowed [Hillary] to initiate and maintain many trading positions – besides the first – when she did not have enough money in her account to cover them.”

Interestingly, Bone was later charged with violations of his company’s record keeping and margin requirement rules. Babcock also reported that Refco had to fork over $250,000 in fines, “then the largest in exchange’s history.”   “I was lucky,” Hillary once said about her potentially illegal trade tip she claimed to have gotten out of the Wall Street Journal.

Barbara Olson, former Justice Department attorney and Sept. 11 terrorist attack victim (Pentagon), said in her explosive book, Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton, that among the “community of experts, there is general agreement that between 75 percent and 90 percent of commodity players lose. And no one turns $1,000 into $100,000. ‘The average retail customer has about as much chance of that kind of success as I have of driving to Hawaii,’ one Chicago-based investment advisor noted.’”

Hillary’s Martha Stewart-like trade in the commodities market is only one example of further proof of how she virtually skates through life without a vestige of accountability, regardless of how many friends or foes she has to destroy along the way. Hillary is still the same conniving, manipulative woman she has always been – and always will be. Her newest book of fables and fantasy will never change that.

According to the Media Research Center (MRC) regarding how Hillary is now playing the sympathy card, Barbara Walters never really pressed Hillary about any of the scandals that severely plagued the Clinton-Gore era.

For example, Paula Jones – especially when the Clintons paid Jones around $800,000: “…as if Hillary were a victim when she was the prime instigator of an abuse of power in the travel office and had a role in creating the problems in the other areas cited,” MRC said.

Most interestingly, if not more revealing, Hillary never mentioned Juanita Broadrick once during Walters’ one-hour “Hillary, we feel your pain” infomercial.

Moreover, even more evidence that Hillary is lying in her book (and did indeed know about another of Slick Willy’s victim the leftist media trashed) is Gennifer Flowers.

In fact, Hillary is currently featured on’s “Deck of Hillary,” where Hillary is quoted as saying about Gennifer Flowers: “We have to destroy her.”

(’s ‘Deck of Hillary’ is the perfect antidote to counter the many lies, deceptions and blatant political backpedaling crafted by the four ghostwriters hired to write Hillary’s latest tome. And yes, “It Takes a Village” was also written for her.)

Inasmuch as Hillary would like us to believe that her cheating husband has changed and that she somehow has “moved on,” Republican strategist Rich Galen recently told MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough of Scarborough Country: “Hillary is best when she’s American’s victim.”

Just the fact that Hillary has to try so hard to convince us that she’s still in love with Bill and that she “hopes to grow old together” speaks volumes about the blackhole that still exists in their relationship, as well as in her political prowess.


Since 1992 and well into the darkest chapter in American politics, the leftist media have tried to rehabilitate the failure of the Clinton administration to keep our borders safe, to uphold the very law they spent eight years breaking, and to convince us that moral and ethical character didn’t matter in a political leader if the economy was good.

What’s more, as a former practicing lawyer who should be well versed in constructing persuasive arguments, Hillary failed to present a convincing case for anyone to believe anything in her $8 million press release, Living History. But what should we expect from this former lawyer who is also well versed in how to lie, cover up and obstruct justice?

Most assuredly, a person would have to be a complete idiot to believe that Hillary’s book is anything but a way to convince people to buy into her new Martha Stewart act of the happy wife who bakes cookies for her husband, while taking up where Bubba left off in further decimating our nation by spreading unfounded lies about the Bush administration.

In Hillary’s poorly orchestrated whitewash tome, she not only glosses over the scandal-ridden years of their corrupt administration, she desperately – and unsuccessfully – tries to re-write her philandering husband’s adulterous years, as well as the seething crater in her sham of a marriage, telling Walters she “hopes to grow old together” with him.

But the sole purpose of Hillary’s brazenly sanitized, scandal-anemic book is to garner sympathy from her delusional supporters, while purging from the American consciousness the most corrupt administration in U.S. history; it also aims to likely pave the way for a “well-financed” and highly calculated presidential run.

To make that a reality, Walters, Dan Rather, CNN and Time magazine, as well as other Clinton-worshipping media leftists have made it their mission in life to re-script the Clinton legacy (risking what little creditability they have left) to try to convince people to make a paradigm shift in the way we think about the most self-absorbed and politically corrupt couple in U.S. history.

Moreover, these left-wing media degenerates will continue to manipulate the way the Clintons have bulldozed the sanctity of the White House, wreaked unprecedented havoc on the Constitution and sullied the rule of law to retain political power. Predictably, Hillary’s book of lies is nothing but a deliberate attempt to change that history.

(Incongruously, when Newt Gingrich received $4 million to write a book, the Democrats scrutinized him to the point where they launched a four-year ethics committee investigation. But when Hillary writes a book and receives twice the amount, the Democrats hypocritically remained silent. This is further proof of the double standard in the Democratic Party and how they have a different set of rules for their own conduct.)


The furor and the leftist media hype right up until the now infamous Walters’ softball interview was predictably anti-climatic. Hillary actually recapitulated more about the very lies she’s tried to cover up and Walters never once challenged Hillary’s outrageous claims, which spoke volumes about Walters’ objectivity (or lack thereof).

What Hillary didn’t expect is that her lies would backfire as evidence in the many contradictions in Clinton apologist Sidney Blumenthal’s latest book, where he, at times, admits to various episodes where events happened (that are denied in Hillary’s account).

In the one-hour Barbara Walters fluff piece, Hillary certainly confirmed what we already knew: That she is a power-hungry shrew who relishes in playing the victim.

Check out this softball pitched by left-wing Time magazine’s Nancy Gibb:

“Is the ‘vast, right-wing conspiracy’ bigger than you thought when you brought that term into our vocabulary?” By asking this, Gibbs automatically assumed conservatives were to blame for Bill and Hillary’s allegedly criminal behavior: “In the book, you have a lot to say about forgiveness. Have you forgiven Ken Starr?…and “Would you call Bush a radical?”

In fact, Walters even intimated that somehow Hillary actually had become the victim of that supposedly “well-financed” ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ (and that the ubiquitous scandals had absolutely nothing to do with what Bill and Hillary had brought on themselves: “I can barely remember a week went by when one of you wasn’t being criticized and investigated.”

But MRC said that when Hillary answered with a whopper about how “everything that was thrown at me, everything that was said turned out to be without basis in fact,” Walters didn’t bat an eye and Hillary proceeded to complain about the “out of control, zealous prosecutor who was on a partisan campaign to undermine Bill and me and everyone else.”

In reality, the only “well-financed” movement during the Clinton-Gore years was with the left-wing media cohorts; over-paid, incompetent and politically motivated anchors, reporters and producers who consistently spun the Clinton scandals into virtual oblivion.

In the end, the much-to-do-about-nothing interview the leftist media is salivating over is just a continuation of the non-stop Clinton Legacy Rehabilitation Project, and Hillary’s new tome, though anemic of substance and truth, is a big part of it.

It’s also interesting to note how Hillary couldn’t remember who she hired in the Travel Office but can still recall ‘a vast right-wing conspiracy’ that was not the slightest bit responsible for the failures, felonies and crimes that the Clintons brought on themselves.

So, like Gibbs, anchor Carole Simpson of ABC’s World News Tonight/Sunday also pitched Hillary a slow one when trying to get us to feel Hillary’s “pain” in how her “husband’s work to improve the economy has been reversed.”

Oh, please. Since Hillary’s been a New York senator, she voted for more spending bills than any other senator in U.S. history. We’re still trying to recover from the Clinton’s disastrous economic recession of the late 1990s.


The biggest beef the leftist media have with Martha isn’t so much about her being as successful and ruthless as Hillary; it’s about Martha’s traditional, happy homemaker persona juxtaposed to Hillary’s ostensibly admired “I am woman, hear me roar” image she tries to sell to millions of doting young feminists who want to be just like her.

The contrast between Martha and Hillary certainly is palpable: A woman (Martha) who touts traditional family values is looked down upon – mainly by the Left – and now faces possible prison time, against a power-hunger, career-driven woman (Hillary) who has used and abused the powers of her past and present positions to get what she wants and to where she’s at, only to skate past well-deserved prosecution in the process.

Essentially, both women have recipes for recovery: One woman is doing damage control in cyberspace; the one is doing it in print. Unlike Martha, however, Hillary has never had to lift a finger to clear her name in any of her scandals because she’s always had her leftist media allies to support her.

Before most of us even had the intestinal fortitude to watch Hillary’s sit-down with Walters, we already knew it was going to be a softball interview. After all, Walters is not only a liberal; she’s a Hillary admirer, which is the reason why Walters never asked Hillary tough questions.

In a recent interview on the Sean Hannity Show, Walters gave a little preview. When Hannity asked her why she never pressed Hillary on certain issues, Walters claimed it wasn’t appropriate because she was a guest in Hillary’s house during the interview. (Excuse us, Barbara; we thought you were a journalist, not Hillary’s publicist.)

Although it would be a stretch for Walters to be unbiased about anything regarding Hillary, if Walters were truly objective, she wouldn’t have given Hillary the home court advantage by agreeing to conduct the interview in Hillary’s multi-million dollar Chappaqua home (with Bill just down the hall).

In the end, there is really no difference between what Martha did with ImClone stock and what Hillary did with a questionable cattle futures trade. Both involved patently illegal activity in their parallel universe of seemingly unbelievable injustice.

It’s unbelievable because, while Martha espoused elegance and traditional family values, and was seemingly ridiculed, Hillary’s still walking free, touting the myth of the fiercely independent woman who is admired for how many scandals she can cover up, as well as how many toes either get stepped on or tagged on her way up the Hill.

While Martha’s ImClone associates are being sentenced, Hillary’s free ride from justice has included many of her own associates and friends taking the fall for her and Bubba’s numerous prosecutable crimes (Do the names “McDougall” and “Hubbell” sound familiar?). What’s more, the leftist media haven’t batted an eye to investigate them.

The only difference is the Left and its media cohorts love Hillary because of her feminist ideologies of the strong and powerful working woman, while the Left hates Martha because she represented and even championed the homemaker and traditional family living, which goes against the grain of what the Left actually abhors.

Although Hillary has claimed to be Martha’s friend and supposedly has shown her support, don’t think for one minute that Hillary isn’t secretly jumping for joy that she has gotten away with doing the exact same thing Martha did – and is sticking it in the face of justice every chance she touts her shameless excuse for a book.

Just as the Wall Street Journal’s expressed in a recent editorial, correcting the lies Hillary told about them in her book (where she blamed the WSJ’s op-ed page for contributing to Vince Foster’s death):

“If [Hillary] really wants to be trusted in the future, she could start by being more honest about the past,” the June 12 editorial noted.

In the final analysis, Bill and Hillary are living proof of how lying and covering up crimes will only bring heartache, misery and personal destruction sooner or later; not only to a marriage but to a nation. For instance, we’re still suffering the reverberations of their morally, ethically and politically corrupt administration, which likely opened the door to the Sept. 11 atrocities.

Which is why it’s also time for real journalists to start asking the Clintons real questions, instead of allowing these kinds of people to get the pamper treatment from the likes of Walters, Katie Couric, Dan Rather and CNN, who continue to deny their leftist biases.

Doug Schmitz is a free-lance journalist, conservative columnist, media analyst and holds a master’s degree in journalism. He’s a regular columnist for and; he’s also a commentator for and has been a guest columnist for Accuracy in Media ( He’s a proud member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Copyright © 2003 by Doug Schmitz. All Rights Reserved.

Email Doug Schmitz

Send this article to a friend