Hillary's problems

From The Washington Post:

DES MOINES, Oct. 15 -- Former president Bill Clinton entered the Hy-Vee Hall here on Saturday night like an aging rock star, striding up a red carpet, wearing a big smile, his arms outstretched to touch the hands of Democratic admirers lined up along his walkway to the stage.

Clinton came to rally Democrats three weeks before critical midterm elections. But his visit may have served another purpose as well. Alone among prospective Democratic presidential candidates for 2008, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) has not set foot in the state all year, and the futures market in Clinton political stock here has been suffering.

Early polls by the Des Moines Register have shown former North Carolina senator John Edwards, the Democrats' 2004 vice presidential nominee, to be more popular among Democratic activists than the New York senator. A more recent survey of Iowans showed her running weaker than Edwards, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) in a series of hypothetical general election matchups against prospective Republican candidates.

The senator's political advisers dismiss those numbers and perhaps for good reason. Clinton has chosen to focus on her own reelection in New York, they note, and so has not spent time in a state where voters insist on getting to know the candidates before they make a commitment to support them. If she decides to run, say her advisers, attitudes will change.

But Iowa Democrats said Clinton's standing reflects more than her absence. They say there is general unease within the party about her ability to win a general election. Beyond that, some Democrats are troubled by her support for the war in Iraq long after other Democratic politicians such as Kerry and Edwards had renounced their votes for the congressional resolution that authorized President Bush to launch the invasion.

The Democrats may be crazy, but they aren't totally stupid. They had enough sense to dump Howard Dean before he locked up the nomination. Even though he was the candidate who best represented the heart and soul of the modern Democrat voter, in all his repugnant lunacy.

Another issue that needs to be discussed is the role of Bill Clinton in his wife's campaign. When Mr. Clinton was the Attorney General and then Governor of Arkansas anyone wishing to bribe him did not need to meet with him in a dark restaurant and pass an envelope of cash under the table. One only needed to retain the services of his wife, Hillary Rodham of the Rose Law Firm. By paying her generous sums for little or no real work anyone doing business in Arkansas could purchase the good will, and good efforts, of her husband.

The situation has now reversed itself. It is now Bill who serves as bag-man for Hillary. Campaign finance law strictly limits how much any individual, corporation or organization can contribute to a political campaign. However a politician may spend as much of his or her own money as they wish. This includes assets held in common by husband and wife.

Today anyone wishing to funnel what would otherwise be an illegal campaign contribution (in other words a bribe) to Mrs. Clinton need only hire her husband to give a speech, consult or do a bit of writing. Bill earns something like a million dollars per year in this way.

There was nothing wrong with John Kerry spending his wife’s money in his presidential race, or his Senate races for that matter. The Heinz fortune was not ill gotten. The Clinton situation, however, is sailing into uncharted campaign finance waters.

One wonders if Senators McCain and Feingold will have the courage to cast their gaze in that direction before 2008.