Someone please tell me: Is it right for Hillary to be sitting on a $20 million war chest against a relatively zero traction primary challenger in New York? Hillary can afford not to advertise at all and she'd still win this race with a comfortable margin.
Yes, all the money is hers, she's one heckuva fundraiser and has earned it. But think about this a bit: 2006 is one of the best years for the Democratic Party to regain control of Congress. We have an exciting crop of candidates like Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, Jim Webb, Harold Ford, Sherrod Brown, Jack Carter, Sheldon Whitehouse to name a few senate candidates, and we've got a ton of excellent recruits on the House side. Overall though, most of these candidates need to stay competitive financially to make their races winnable. Webb, McCaskill, and Tester in particular are far behind on the money race against their Republican opponents.
Think about it. Hillary donates about $5 million to the DSCC. The DSCC will in turn send the money to these underfunded candidates and enable them to stay very competitive. Think what a $5 million donation can do for Webb's campaign. Allen has close to $10 million. All Webb has to do is get enough campaign contributions which Steve Jarding, Webb's campaign adviser thinks can be in the $6-7 million range. Webb will win this handily if he gets enough money to compete.
And no, this is not an attack on Hillary. I'm just saying, she could really be of help to the Democratic Party if she makes a significant donation to the party this year. No question, the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC could use the money.
Note: I want every candidate past or present who is sitting comfortably on a huge money chest to make significant financial contributions to the Democratic Party this election cycle. And yes, as one commenter reminded me, John Kerry needs to step up as well. He has a $10 million plus campaign account. Hillary was the most obvious money-wise, but I certainly didn't mean to pick on her.