From the Washington Post: Two Clintons. 41 Years. $3 Billion.

This fits with previous discussions about money in politics. Both Bill and Hillary have made and cultivated powerful, wealthy friends. If you want to win high office - or to some degree any office - this is a requirement.

- Click here for the story.

Over four decades of public life, Bill and Hillary Clinton have built an unrivaled global network of donors while pioneering fundraising techniques that have transformed modern politics and paved the way for them to potentially become the first husband and wife to win the White House.

The grand total raised for all of their political campaigns and their family’s charitable foundation reaches at least $3 billion, according to a Washington Post investigation.

Their fundraising haul, which began with $178,000 that Bill Clinton raised for his long-shot 1974 congressional bid, is on track to expand substantially with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 White House run, which has already drawn $110 million in support.

Hillary Clinton is in

The announcement came on Sunday the 12th.

- The NYT describes it here.

Like other candidates she made the annoucement via video.

- Which you can see here on You Tube (of course).

For commentary (so far):

- Vox: What losing in 2008 taught Hillary about how to win in 2016.
- The National Journal: HILLARY CLINTON IS WINNING THE 2016 ELECTION—ON FACEBOOK.
- Vox: Hillary Clinton's uncontested nomination is dangerous for her and her party.
- The National Journal: Hill Progressives Look to Push Clinton to the Left.
- The National Journal: Progressives and Elizabeth Warren Die-Hards Are Preparing for Life With Hillary Clinton.
- New York Magazine: Why Hillary Clinton Is Probably Going to Win the 2016 Election.
- The New Republic: There's Nothing Inevitable About Hillary.
- New York Magazine: Is Hillary Clinton any good at running for president? And how much does it matter, anyway?
- Open Secrets: Will Clinton Win Back Wall Street for Democrats?

The White House v. The State Department

A recent speech by Hillary Clinton may have been an attempt to stay relevant.

Diplomatic responsibilities are split between various players in the executive branch, with the obvious consequence.

The Emoluments Clause

It seems to be throwing a curveball at Clinton's Secretary of State appointment.

Hillary Haters

Its a curious obsession says Stanley Fish. Two quotes from his article:

"In the January issue of GQ, Jason Horowitz described the world of Hillary haters, many of whom he has interviewed. Horowitz finds that the hostile characterizations of Clinton do not add up to a coherent account of her hatefulness. She is vilified for being a feminist and for not being one, for being an extreme leftist and for being a “warmongering hawk,” for being godless and for being “frighteningly fundamentalist,” for being the victim of her husband’s peccadilloes and for enabling them. “She is,” Horowitz concludes, “an empty vessel into which [her detractors] can pour everything they detest.” (In this she is the counterpart of George W. Bush, who serves much the same function for many liberals.)"

"...there is an “inexhaustible fertile market of Clinton hostility,” but that “the search for a unifying theory of what drives Hillary’s most fanatical opponents is a futile one.” The reason is that nothing drives it; it is that most sought-after thing, a self-replenishing, perpetual-energy machine."

Note the comparison with George Bush. He is also the focus of indiscriminate rage by a passionate fringe. It's a mind set that helps people frame the political world in a way that makes sense to them, but perhaps with little basis in reality. Is it healthy for democracy? Is it an inevitable by-product of the internet age?

Winning by Losing

When covering elections, we generally argue that the presidential elections of 1964 and 1972 were catastrophic failures for, respectively, the Republicans and the Democrats. After all, each party's fringe nominated candidates that were not accepted by the electorate's moderates.

But David Broder reminds us that each candidate represented a wing within the party that was growing in strength and eventually allowed the party to dominate a series of elections. The Goldwater Republicans later fixated on Reagan. Now, he suggests, the wing that brought you George McGovern--who pushed to expand the party to aggressively include women and minorities--is deciding between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, two products of that inclusion.

He suggests that the effort to find strategic politicians that scrape through with narrow victories do not leave lasting legacies.

The Pentagon takes on Hillary

And Fred Kaplan calls it a big mistake. A bit of background. Senator Clinton wrote to the Pentagon some time ago asking, as many in the Senate have, about progress in Iraq. She received what has been described as a dismissive reply suggesting that she mind her own business.

Kaplan suggests that this might be a mistake for two reasons, and it might serve as a cautionary tale to Democrats who are desperate to impeach the president: nothing rallies a group like an attack on one of their own.

The lower level Pentagon official may have simultaneously rallied (1) women, who may infer sexist condescension in the letter and (2) the Senate who see this as the military rebuffing a legitimate inquiry into how it is conducting an engagement that it sanctioned in law and continues to pay for, both monetarily and with the service of their constituents.

Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, is expected to provide her --and the Senate as a whole--with a more thoughtful reply.

Hell Freezes Over

In what has to bad news for Anti-Hillary Conservatives, the New York Times reports today (link may not work) that Richard Mellon Scaife, the person who underwrote the investigations against the Clintons in the 90s is not likely to do the same before the 2008 elections.

The reason? Here's the shocker, but this comes from a former assistant to Mr. Scaife: "Clinton wasn't such a bad president. In fact he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways and Dick (Mr. Scaife) feels the same way."

That's not way to run a movement. What may be worse, Rupert Murdoch aka. Mr Fox News, seems to have warmed up to her also.

Others seem poised to step into the breach though, including Paul Weyrich a "founding father of the modern conservative movement. They still see potential in taking her on. The story points out the importance to conservative fundraisers of anti-Hillary strategies. "The Helen of Troy of direct mail," says one. "The face who can launch a thousand donations."

The question seems to be whether people have tired enough of the Clinton bashing to where it doesn't work anymore. Of course it could also mean that the lull has meant that people might be prone to revisit these controversies with a fresh eye.

Regardless, if she becomes the nominee we'll see whether this still matters.

You might want to purchase a good raincoat.