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.
MARTHA’S GOOSE BEING COOKED IN HILLARY-LIKE SCANDAL
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, Newsmax.com reported. As a result, the stock price has
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
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
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
HILLARY SKATES PAST QUESTIONABLE CATTLE FUTURES TRADE
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
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
In fact, Hillary is currently featured on Newsmax.com’s “Deck of Hillary,”
where Hillary is quoted as saying about Gennifer Flowers: “We have to destroy
(Newsmax.com’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.
LIVING “HER” STORY IS RE-LIVING THE TREASONOUS CLINTON YEARS
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
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.)
WALTERS LETS HILLARY OFF HOOK WITH SOFTBALL INTERVIEW
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
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.
MARTHA AND HILLARY’S PARALLEL UNIVERSE
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
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
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 OpinionJournal.com 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 AmericanDaily.com and Etherzone.com; he’s also
a commentator for BushCountry.org and has been a guest columnist for Accuracy
in Media (www.aim.org). He’s a proud member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Copyright © 2003 by Doug Schmitz. All Rights Reserved.
Email Doug Schmitz
this article to a friend