I find it so interesting that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is attempting to cast herself as the "change" candidate in the race. She and her supporters tout her as the strongest Democratic candidate, and cite her dominance in fundraising, endorsements, and campaign organization as evidence of that claim.
But the nearly 60% of Democratic voters who support other Democratic candidates for president have a different concern. Our fear is that Hillary Clinton is polarizing and divisive, and that her presence at the top of our ticket will cause incumbents and challengers in swing states to run away from her rather than run with her. This claim is supported by a recent poll commissioned by a Latino interest group and conducted by former Clinton pollster Celinda Lake.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201024_ pf.html A recent survey by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, however, showed Clinton and Obama trailing former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) in the 31 Democratic-held House districts regarded as most imperiled in 2008, and even potentially serving as a drag on those lawmakers' reelection chances. Giuliani takes 49 percent to Clinton's 39 percent.
Perhaps more damaging to Clinton is her link to questionable fundraising, and in some cases to outright dirty money. Fundraising has long haunted the legacy of both Clintons. As far back as 1997, questions were raised after Bill Clinton used the Lincoln Bedroom as a fundraising mechanism, inviting financial contributors to stay the night in the historic room after providing large donations to the DNC and his reelection campaign.
From CNN:
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Feb. 26) -- President Bill Clinton's guests in the Lincoln Bedroom gave a total of at least $5.4 million to the Democratic National Committee during 1995 and 1996, according to a study for CNN by the Campaign Study Group. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/02/2 6/clinton.lincoln/
Hillary Clinton has extended the same "pay to play" fundraising style in her own presidential campaign.
Even if nothing illegal was committed, that fundraising scandal is an indication of what's wrong in Washington. Remember that just weeks ago she hosted a "national security" fundraiser where she hooked up lobbyists and the committee chairs that enact their legislation. Here's what Chris Matthews had to say on the subject:
Speaking of lobbyists, what does Hillary Clinton have to say about them?
That's right, lobbyists represent real Americans. I certainly have one or two working on my behalf right now, and I'm sure you do as well. I guess that's why Senator Clinton has received more lobbyist money than any other Democrat in history, while Edwards and Obama take the principled stand of rejecting funds from Washington lobbyists.
Beyond the issue of lobbyists, Hillary Clinton also was forced to return nearly a million dollars received by associates of disgraced "Hill-raiser" Norman Hsu. Clinton allowed Hsu to be a bundler even when other campaigns, including the California Democratic Party, had rejected his funds due to his fugitive status. She returned the money after being caught.
Beyond the finance woes, do any of us want to be reminded of THIS when the Republicans start running their ads?
The problem was, he did have sexual relations with that woman, he did lie under oath, and he was impeached in what was perhaps the most divisive time in modern American politics. It was the impeachment scandal that contributed to Al Gore's narrow loss to George Bush.
Most recently, the former president refuses to disclose the donors to his presidential library. According to ABC News:
Doesn't that sound like the kind of open politics we need? And what better a group of people to be taking money from: The Al Saud's, the government of Dubai, the Waltons, etc. No wonder he won't disclose his library's donors.ABC News' Rick Klein and Eloise Harper Report: Former president Bill Clinton said Thursday that he will not reveal the names of donors to the Clinton Presidential Library unless he is required to by law, rebuffing pressure from his wife's rivals for more disclosure.
"The people that have already given me money, I don't think I should disclose it unless there is some conflict of which I am aware -- and there is not -- because a lot of people gave me money with the understanding that they could give anonymously. And if they gave publicly they would be the target for every other politician in America."
Among the entities who have been reported to have given more than $1 million toward the presidentical center: the governments of Dubai, Kuwait, and Qatar; the Saudi royal family; a deputy prime minister of Lebanon; filmmakers Steven Spielberg, Stephen Bing, and David Geffen; Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart heir Alice Walton; the Anheuser-Busch Foundation; and Vin Gupta, chairman and CEO of infoUSA Inc., a telemarketing firm that has come under scrutiny for its handling of private information. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/clinton-libary-.html
We Democrats should be looking toward the future. We need to cut with the Clinton years. We need our party to cut ties with lobbyists. We need a presidential candidate not tainted by fundraising scandals and weighed down by past lapses in moral judgment. In other words, we need someone other than Hillary Clinton.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 55 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
