A brewing Clinton scandal
James Forsyth 7:04pm
The gloves are coming off in the US presidential race. Today, Rudy Giuliani’s team labelled Mitt Romney a Hillary Clinton clone, which is like a Labour politician calling one of his colleagues a Thatcherite in the 1980s. While on the Democratic side, John Edwards and Barack Obama are taking increasingly openly swings at Hillary Clinton. So this LA Times story about Hillary’s fundraising might give either of them the opening they need to go after Hillary on what are her three biggest weaknesses: her links to the Clinton scandals of the 1990s, trustworthiness and being part of the same old political establishment.
It is hard to put a sympathetic spin on this story about Clinton’s surprising success in raising large amounts of coin in New York’s Chinatown neighbourhood, an area where 45 percent of people are living below the poverty line.
“The Times examined the cases of more than 150 donors who provided checks to Clinton after fundraising events geared to the Chinese community. One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public records.The issue now is whether Obama and Edwards both feel confident enough in their own fundraising efforts to make this an issue and whether they are prepared to take the really hard shot at Hillary that they would need to, to knock her off her stride. Stay tuned.And several dozen were described in financial reports as holding jobs -- including dishwasher, server or chef -- that would normally make it difficult to donate amounts ranging from $500 to the legal maximum of $2,300 per election.”
Previous
Comments
joy morones
October 19th, 2007 9:52pmBut do any of us really believe that Hillary is more honourable than her husband?
joy morones
October 19th, 2007 9:53pmA little confused here. I've given you my comment but up pops the same thing. I did say that do any of us really believe that Hillary is any more trustworthy than her husband?
Prantha Trivedi
October 20th, 2007 12:24amTrust me when I say that most Americans want to get rid of the entire Bush/Clinton dynasty. Clinton is not as sleazy as Bush, to be sure. Hillary is simply "Bush Lite."
Andrew Heap
October 20th, 2007 1:17amI don't trust you at all. Those are two massive and uninformed generalizations--perhaps the second more than the first, but still.
Jeremy Baer
October 20th, 2007 10:40amCampaign funding issues have never been properly addressed despite the rhetoric. I will be amazed if anything comes of this. All major politicians suffer from this Achilles heel and so cannot afford to attack their opponents lest they be counter-attacked themselves.
David Lindsay
October 22nd, 2007 12:17pmWho now remembers that it was Dwight D Eisenhower, in his farewell address from the White House, who first warned of "the military-industrial complex"? Today, that complex is a full-blown political party, the War Party, effectively the One Party in the One Party States of America. And Hillary Clinton is giving that War Party what it wants most: an election which it cannot lose. So it is giving her what she wants most: the money to win that election. Instead, the Democrats should draft Jim Webb, or he should stand as an Independent. And win. Failing that, the Republicans should nominate Ron Paul, for all his faults economically. And if they don't and Webb doesn't stand either, then he should stand as an Independent. And win.