Love her or hate her, Hillary has got lots and lots of money. And she doesn't want anyone else to share in that fundraising pie.
I am not against Hillary, or her all consuming ambition to become President, but I am not sure I am for her either. She is smart, knows politics well and would make a decent Head of State.
I just want to throw this out there. Has anyone else noticed the Bush style sweep Hillary is making in campaigning for President. She is using the same tactics that W did in 1999. Acting like she has already won before she has won the primary.
I am not feeling quite comfortable with this seeming monopoly she holds on fundraising from large donors. And behind the scenes some fairly brutal tactics to make sure that no one gets a piece of the pie. Nor do I feel comfortable with this sense of dynastic entitlement that would put President Clinton and President Clinton in the oval office.
I would like to think that Hillary as President is not a foregone conclusion, at that the voters will actually have a choice of candidates, that is not based on who raises the most money from big donors, while excluding others from any chance.
These thoughts have been roiling in my head, and Howard Fineman echoed my feelings and added a bit of inside info.
Hillary's Money Politics
the senator's strategy for locking up the Democratic presidential nomination certainly is no secret: raise so much money, and build such a state-of-the-art machine, that competitors will fold their tents before the 2008 battle begins. It's an ironic but exact copy of what Bush did in 2000.
This is the part that I find disturbing.
And she is following Bush in another way: not only is she asking big donors to support her—she is, at least implicitly, asking them NOT to give to anyone else.
The scenario being if you are a friend, we want you to donate to just us (Hill and Bill) and no one else. When we win (wink wink) you will be remembered. The loyalty factor at play.
But there's a risk to the obsessive money focus: it can blind you to the politics of an issue, and it can create conflicts—or at least the appearance of conflict—between candidate and spouse.
Isn't this just exactly what we want to get away from, that sense of loyalty that exacts a blindness regarding real life political issues?
A good example is the Dubai Ports World deal. On the very day Hillary was denouncing it, Bill Clinton was singing the praises of the "Dubai guys" at the National Governors Association meeting here. He didn't tell us that he had fielded calls from the U.A.E. on how to handle the matter—let alone that he had collected, according to published reports, $600,000 in speaking fees from them since he left the White House.
Trying to twist everyone else's fundraising knickers in a knot and keep money from other good candidates.
The tactics come from the presumptive democratic nominee, but they sound awfully familiar to the tactics that W followed in his first Presidential bid.
It just kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Are you really comfortable with Bill being back in the White House? Are you comfortable with an ex-President campaigning for his own wife. I guess there is a first for everything. And we could do a lot worse than Hillary. But like she said, she is in to win...... at any cost. And that includes squeezing other runners out of the money game.
Will it be the King and Queen in 08? Hill and Bill. The dynamic duo?
And remember IF Hillary wins, her pick for VP will be the likely democratic candidate in 2016, so all considered that is a whole lot of power in shaping how this country will go forward.
Just some thoughts to mull over. Anyone else?