« | »

Hillary Puts Diva-Like Demands In Her Speech Contracts

From the UK’s Daily Mail:

Hillary’s $2,777 PER MINUTE speaking contracts demand a ‘presidential’ teleprompter, let her cancel ‘for any reason whatsoever’ and she’s the only one allowed on stage

By David Martosko | 16 July 2014

Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state who is preparing to run for president on a populist platform of fighting income inequality, demanded $2,777 per minute for two university speaking engagements and insisted on contracts that cut off reporters’ access to her and limited the number of photos she would take with well-wishers.

Besides, we’re pretty sure she still gets less money per speech than the ‘Big Creep.’

The Harry Walker Agency drew up legal agreements for Clinton’s speeches at the State University of New York at Buffalo in August 2013 and at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas next month. Combined, the two gigs netted the Clintons’ family foundation $500,000 for three hours’ work, and allowed her to cancel or reschedule the events ‘for any reason whatsoever.’

Wow. And to think they get paid that kind of money for saying absolutely nothing of importance.

Both contracts, one published online by The Washington Post and the other by The Daily Caller, paint a picture of a control-freak PR machine surrounding Hillary. ‘There will be no other media opportunities or availabilities (i.e.. press conferences, statements. etc.).’

The Buffalo appearance earned Clinton $275,000 for an hour on stage and a 30-minute photo line – limited to 50 photos of her alongside no more than 100 people. UNLV will pay her another $225,000 for a similar 90-minute commitment, although angry students there have asked her to refund her fees since their tuition has nearly tripled since a decade ago.

Both schools had to agree to her prickly list of demands before her agent would sign on the dotted line. The contracts they signed insist that Hillary must be ‘the only person on stage during her remarks.’

The Buffalo paperwork specifically demands a ‘presidential glass panel teleprompter,’ although video of that speech shows she strayed from the podium and didn’t use it.

Hillary has the exclusive right to approve ‘sets, backdrops, banners, scenery, logos, [and] settings’ connected to her speeches, and gives her ‘sole discretion’ over what she talks about in public.

She ‘may elect to reschedule or cancel her appearance … for any reason whatsoever and at any time prior to the engagement.’ She gets 20 complimentary VIP tickets and a university-paid stenographer – at a price of $1,000 in Buffalo and $1,250 in Las Vegas – just for her personal records.

And her speaking agency can veto any potential Q-and-A moderators, and only those moderators – never members of the audience – can talk to her directly…

None of this should be at all surprising. If you have watched Hillary ‘evolve’ over the years, it’s clear from her body language — the way she walks and carries herself and waves at the great unwashed — that she thinks she is a movie star. It’s actually pretty funny, once you realize that is what she is pretending to be.

In fact, we are becoming more and more convinced that this is the main reason people run for office today, especially the Presidency. They get to pretend that they are movies stars and celebrities. — They certainly don’t seem to go into it in order to do the jobs they’re elected to. (Cf. Barack Hussein Obama.)

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Thursday, July 17th, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

One Response to “Hillary Puts Diva-Like Demands In Her Speech Contracts”

  1. yadayada

    “They get to pretend that they are movies stars and celebrities.”

    Steve – in our current culture, they ARE celebrities. (famous, celebrated person). look at the way they are fawned over by their lackeys and psycho-phantic media types. plus they rub elbows with celebs from all genres. they make tons of money for doing essentially nothing. and with his love for all things union and the amount of airtime and photo ops he craves, he should join the screen actors guild.
    the unfortunate part of it is their sense of entitlement to the praise and luxury they constantly seek, instead of the humility of service we should be seeking in them before electing them.

    W. may not have done as good a job as we would have liked, but he wasn’t vainglorious. I have read and heard credible accounts of his being a surprisingly humble man for the power he held. whereas o’hole doesn’t have two molecules of shame or humility in his body.
    unfortunate is the fact that those who seek any position for it’s power (or prestige) are, by definition, least qualified to serve in it.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »