Bill Clinton's Modest 1.7 Million Dollar Home

[lostnotforgotten]

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/06/first.lady/index.html

President off to Washington, Hillary remains in New York as commuter marriage begins

January 6, 2000
Web posted at: 2:05 a.m. EST (0705 GMT)

CHAPPAQUA, New York (CNN) -- The moving vans are being unpacked, and on Thursday, President Bill Clinton heads back to Washington, leaving first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton to settle into their new home and prepare for her campaign for the New York Senate.

It is the start of a modern commuter marriage, with the first lady setting up a new home in a white $1.7 million house in a cul-de-sac in the wealthy hamlet north of New York City, while her husband remains at the White House. On Wednesday, the Clintons had their first meal at the new house, where they both plan to live after Clinton leaves office in January, 2001.

Their furniture and other goods arrived from Washington in two moving vans. "Like any new homeowners, they're excited," White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said after the couple arrived. Joining them was Mrs. Clinton's mother, Dorothy Rodham.

Snip ......



Picture Links Here

http://cryptome.org/clinton/clinton-eyeball.htm

[Harper_is_Bush]

1. Global Warming wasn't the same issue then as it is now.

So that line don't fly.

[havocmom]

2. You are kidding

What, it just sorta popped up all the sudden? No, it's been coming for a long time now and many knew it.

[Horse with no Name]

3. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT THREAD!!!11SERIESLY!!1!!

Global warming is the fault of none other than Clinton and his palatial estate.

[havocmom]

4. Am confused. Didn't it happen SINCE then???!!!11!!?

Gads, I need a scoreboard to keep track... a big friggin score board ;)

[Horse with no Name]

6. Well I can't be sure

But I bet that dang John Carry had something to do with it too.;)

[Harper_is_Bush]

9. No, I'm not. And unless you're being intellecually dishonest

you should know I'm correct.

Or perhaps you're confused about what "issue" means...?

[havocmom]

23. anybody who doesn't agree with you is confused or dishonest?

:rofl:

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. You know, that's an AMAZINGLY stupid thing to say.

Of course global warming was the same issue then that it is now; glaciers melting, snow pack on mountain peaks disappearing, etc (what do you think the Kyoto accords were about, anyway?)...it's just that it's taken the better part of a decade for enough people (or should I say 'enough Americans'?) to wake up to it.

[Harper_is_Bush]

11. You know, you made the same mistake as havocmom

Go look up the word "issue", and then get back to me. If you were old enough in 2000 to have been aware of which issues were getting attention and commanding any kind of widespread respect; and you can STILL come to me and claim global warming is the same issue now as it was then, well.....I won't call you "stupid", but I will ask you to share whatever it is you're smoking.

[Lorien]

12. Hmmm. in 1986 my college held a fundraising drive to purchase

Amazon rainforest, the primary reason given was to help keep global warming in check.

I've been concerned about this issue for so long that I chose to remain childless because of my worries about climate change at age 20-and that was 21 years ago.

[Harper_is_Bush]

15. With all due respect

that does not take away from the simple truth of my statement.

Global Warming, thank goodness, is NOT the same issue it was 6 years ago.

It should be obvious that by that I don't mean it's not the same thing that it was 6 years ago. Obviously it is what it is, and that hasn't changed in 6 years.

What HAS changed is the seriousness (it has gotten worse) ahd the public awareness and acceptence of it as a reality needing attention.

So you see, the comparison to someone building/buying a home 6 years ago is a useless one.

But as you might know Edwards wife posted some damage control on their blog today. Surprise!

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

Global warming was still a serious issue seven years ago, despite lack of media attention. (I'm quite aware of the meaning of the word "issue", by the way; my usage of it is correct.)

And you might want to brush up on your reading comprehension skills, too; I didn't call you "stupid". Very large difference in meaning between "that's a stupid thing to say" (which is what I said) and "you're stupid for saying that" (which isn't).

[Harper_is_Bush]

17. You're just not getting it. Maybe read post 15, I explain it a bit more there.

good luck.

[Spider Jerusalem]

19. Seems that you're the one not getting it;

public perception of the threat posed by global warming has changed, yes, but the negative consequences of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions, and the potential for potential for a shift from a logarithmic rate of change to an exponential one, were well-known in 2000. It seems rather sophomoric to argue that the importance of something like climate change depends solely on public opinion.

[Harper_is_Bush]

20. Sophomoric, huh? lol. It's naive and ignorant to believe

that public perception (ie. AWARENESS) of an issue is irrelavent to public reaction to it.

[havocmom]

25. It's something that has been an ISSUE with some of us

for friggin DECADES

Glad you finally got on board. ;)

Reminds me of the bus load of planned parenthood pro-choice on the way from Tucson to Phoenix. A young college coed, on her way to the loo in the back of the bus stopped to chat up an elderly couple sitting in front of me.

"I am just SO glad you guys came along to the march..." says the young woman, patting the woman easily in her late 70s on the shoulder.

The old woman put her hand over the young woman's hand and replied: 'We've been doing this for over 50 years. Glad YOU finally showed up too'

The issue of global warming and sustainable lifestyles has been around a while longer than the past news cycle or two.

[pnwmom]

16. No, it wasn't. Research released recently shows that the problem

is proceeding much more quickly than the SAME scientists thought was true just a few years ago.

[The Count]

5. You know what? It is modest. One of the many in Chapaqua.

After 8 years POTUS, no compound, no 50,000 trees killed.
The man lived modestly all his life and this home is no exception, considering the circumstances. So...what's really the point of all this?
After all, Hillary didn't write about the "plush style" of other democrats...
Such as:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1538640-1,00.html


You write about the Kerrys' plush lifestyle. How would you describe
yours?

It's a different kind of luxury, I think. I know the people whose
artwork is on my walls--they're not the old masters. I shop at Target.
We eat at Wendy's. Even though we have a lot and I feel very blessed,
we are basically the same people we were when we first started out and
made, between us, $28,000 a year.

It may be a better idea to drop these threads. It's a trivial issue - but only struck a nerve because of the opposite PR image.

[sandnsea]

7. Furnished her house at Target she did

:rofl:

Yeah, I think it's time they stopped with the po' folk schtick and just be who they are, wealthy people who care about poor people, just like most of the rest of the Democratic Party.

[fujiyama]

21. I gotta agree

That's pretty far fetched. They have money. They are spending it. LOL, yeah sure the Edwards' are decorating their 10,000+ square feet home with stuff from Target.

Personally, I don't care how Edwards enjoys his wealth, and while I do think this house purchase has been blown out of proportion, the simple fact is that they are consuming more resources. BTW, is it true that Elizabeth actually criticized Teresa Heinz's lifestyle or wealth? Maybe that was a rumor. I never saw a source.

I think this was a poor move on Edwards' part politically.

[Porcupine]

14. American wealthy wasting the worlds resources is not trivial.

I suspect the Clinton's home in Chapaqa is about as small as could be and still provide for 2 offices and the 24/7 secret service detail. That kind of money doesn't get you something truly enormous in California. I'm not sure about New York but I suspect it's somewhat the same.

If it was even 4500 sq ft I would be surprised. Still a mansion.

edit: dyslexic when angry.

[pnwmom]

18. You are right. A house under $2 million in a NYC suburb isn't

exhorbitant.

We're talking about an ex-President and a Senator, and this isn't a palace. I don't think most Americans would be disturbed about them buying a USED 5200 square foot home in a nice neighborhood -- as they did.

[quinnox]

8. notice all the black secret service cars

covering both access points, lol, I'd say they are well protected.

[fujiyama]

22. I am often very critical of Hillary

but considering Bill is an ex-president and she's a senator, a relatively most 1.7 million dollar home just outside of NYC doesn't really compare to a 10,000+ square feet house in NC.

Granted, personally, it's all relative. I'm sure the Edwards' net worth is much higher. And plus, Hillary doesn't live there in NYC all the time anyways and Bill Clinton is traveling the world all te time for AIDS or tsunami relief...so such a large home would not be as practical.

[Quixote1818]

24. Who would need any more than that anyway? Just the right size. nt