Is Hillary Worth $2,777 Per Minute?

Hey, I thought Gisele Bundchen was well-paid at $128,000 a day, but Hillary Clinton’s $2,777 per minute works out to just about $2 million a day, if you assume Gisele works 12-hour days, which I am guessing she does. Is Hillary worth 15 times as much as Gisele? Hmm… Hillary, Gisele…Hillary, Gisele…

Enough! Sorry, Tom, but I’m convinced Gisele is a bargain compared to Hillary.

By the way, it is a little-known fact that Gisele Bundchen has a sister who is better looking than she is. The sister is a lawyer in Brazil, who earns a good living but a tiny fraction of Gisele’s haul. Gisele isn’t the prettiest woman in her family, she is the smartest. I am confident that she is a good deal more intelligent than Hillary.

Gisele is a much nicer person, too, as anyone who follows her Instagram account can tell you. The conditions that Hillary imposes on her absurdly overpaid speaking engagements have recently come to light, and they aren’t pretty. No press allowed! Presidential-level teleprompter required! No one can be on the stage except Hillary! No one can ask Hillary a question! Hillary has veto power over all moderators! And so on. If only the Republican presidential debates could command such deference!

Does anyone remember anything Hillary has ever said in a speech? No. Her speeches are totally pedestrian. She has no original thoughts. Why does anyone pay Hillary hundreds of thousands of dollars to mouth platitudes? Well, no one does, except colleges and universities. This is another difference between Hillary and Gisele: Gisele actually does productive work. She helps cosmetics and clothing companies sell products. This is honest labor, albeit at a very high level.

But what does Hillary do? No sane person would pay to sit through one of her speeches. The universities that pay her hundreds of thousands of dollars are always quick to say that it wasn’t their money–it doesn’t account for their spiraling tuition!–but rather, it was contributed by donors. This is called money laundering. No one could contribute $250,000 to Hillary’s campaign–legally–but anyone can give the money to a university to underwrite her fee for a forgettable speech.

When Hillary’s grasping ways were finally reported in the press, she said that from now on, she will donate her speaking fees to a charity. No mention of the millions in potential campaign funds that she has already collected. But what charity will now receive her largesse? The Clinton Foundation, which is best known for underwriting the Clinton family’s international travel.

In my opinion, Hillary Clinton is a lousy presidential candidate. A person of mediocre ability and little accomplishment, she is instinctively unlikable. But Hillary shouldn’t be underestimated. The Democrats elected the first affirmative action president in 2008, and they are determined to elect the second in 2016. When that presidential cycle comes around, any criticism of Hillary’s awful record as a senator and as Secretary of State will be declared off limits: war on women! No one will dare point out how average her talents are, and how thin her accomplishments or how poor her judgment, without the full weight of the culture falling on his head. Hillary is, after all, a woman.

So she must be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. If only we could run Gisele Bundchen against her! More accomplished, more intelligent, with a better understanding of economics, not to mention family life. But Gisele, unfortunately, is Brazilian and therefore ineligible. We Republicans must put fantasy aside and identify the candidate who can best stymie the Clintons’ determination to return to the White House. The 2016 election cycle has a long way to go, but we should be focused on a single goal: finding the best candidate to defeat Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ only plausible nominee. We will have much more to say about that in the months to come.