As long as her heart and her policies are in the right place, it doesn't matter how much she has earned. Edwards is one example of a Dem who fits the bill -- rich but cares about the less fortunate, universal health insurance, etc. The Kennedys and Howard Dean are others.

It doesn't bother me that candidates have money or more money. What bothers me is that it isn't possible to run for office in this country without it. Politics is theoretically supposed to be open to everyone but of course it isn't and the whole system just furthers elitism. I'm getting pretty sick of the same candidates coming from such a small pool. And only having two parties. And the electoral college. It's pathetic, truly.

Definitely agree. The amts of money needed are obscene.

I remember George Carlin talking about political party choices vs cat food brand choices. I think he had found well over 150 cat food brand choices. Political parties = 2.

The unofficial religious test is something that we eventually have to get past as well. As an atheist, running for much of anything is simply out of the question. Then during presidential debates, the wonderful news media asks the candidates what their favorite Bible verse is. They're not running for pastor-in-chief.

I don't think it should matter how much money the Clintons make, but I do believe that this is going to get tossed around in the media for awhile, and there will be lots of spins on it. The huge amount of attention it will garner will ensure further scrutiny and condemnation by people already looking to darken Hillary's reputation.

I agree with Ian though - it doesn't matter how much Hillary or Obama make as long as their hearts and policies are in the right place. Just because Hillary's got more money than most people, doesn't mean she can't care about the well-being of the masses.

How much money she brings in doesn't matter to me. The fact that a lot of politicians say they care about the poor but keep more money than they need does seem a tad hypocritical, though. I know it's a mess when you start saying "well how much do you REALLY need?" because we live in a society where you "need" a lot of luxury items to keep up in politics and so on. But still. I wouldn't change my vote based on this - especially since I get the impression there aren't huge differences between the candidates in how much they donate and so on - but I personally think if you drive a Porsche when you could drive a Toyota and donate the difference, you don't have a lot of room to talk. (The car thing is just an example, I have no idea what cars candidates own, nor do I want to.) Still, in the case of a politician, I'd rather them push for the policies I like and be hypocrites than admit that they like being some of the richest people around and make their policy fit that. So yeah, I think what they advocate politically is more important than what they do personally, but if I had to choose between candidates with the exact same politics and one was more frugal in order to be more generous, I'd probably go with that one, thinking that one was more dedicated to the issue of poverty.

And, lilaeden has a great point.

I support Barack Obama, but not because he's poorer than Hillary.

It seems pretty silly to support or not support a candidate solely based on his or her income level, just like it would be ridiculous to support a candidate just because he is black or she is a woman.

Like lilaeden said, the fact that Hillary is rich isn't what's troubling - what's troubling is that she NEEDS to be rich in order to run for President, and so does Obama, for that matter.

Other than that, though, I don't think the amount of money someone makes affects his or her ability to be a good leader to all Americans.

Yet another example of the media scrutinizing Clinton from every angle imaginable while verbally making love to Obama.

Why do we freaking care how much money she makes? Or made?

You basically HAVE to be wealthy to make it far in politics these days (lilaedan makes a great point on this topic). I'm sure we could sit here and go through every member of the federal gov't, from Congress (wouldn't sifting through 535 bank accounts be so much fun?) to the cabinet to the justices and about 90% of them would have more money than most of us can imagine. No matter what party and what their values and voting records are.

You don't have to be a member of a group to fight for it. I'm white but I care about minorities. I'm straight but I care about gay rights. I don't have any family members in the military but I want the war to end. I don't have a car but I want oil prices to go down and to look for alternative fuels. I don't have (or even particularly like) children but I believe in education reform and equality. I don't really think I need to go on. It doesn't make me a hypocrite or any less able to care about and fight for these issues.

If we went along with this, we'd have to kick every male feminist off this site. How could a man care about what happens to women? (I don't really think that. FYI.) It's the same argument. And we all know that's crap, so clearly this is too.

This past Friday I saw Obama and Clinton speak in Grand Forks, ND and during Clinton's speech she spoke at length about Bush's failed plan to revive the economy with tax cuts for the wealthy.

Then she paused and said, "Not that I have anything against rich people." It was a sort of wink, wink, nudge, nudge moment and the audience loved it. We all had a good laugh.

She went on to say, "my husband and I didn't ask for Bush's tax cuts and we didn't need them."

She's already acknowledged that they're wealthy. I mean, they both had best selling books and successful political careers. HELLO. The only people who think this is news are the people TRYING to take her down.

Just because it has always been so that rich people are the only people who run for president, does that mean that we just shrug and accept it? Should the top 1% always be representing the bottom 99% in our "representational" democracy?

I personally couldn't care less how much money candidates earn. What I care about is how they earn it and who is paying them. These things, I think, are highly relevant to judging the merits of a person running a political campaign. Like the money that Bush and his cronies have made off of oil in the past. This is highly relevant. Or Cheney's association with Halliburton. Having not yet read about the tax returns, I have no idea whether or not Clinton has anything even remotely like this going on (and if she did, I highly doubt that it would be nearly as bad) . . . but I was under the impression that this was the (political) reason for the demand behind the release of the tax returns, not how much Clinton makes but where it all comes from.

So wait a second, they're trying to pull the "she makes more money than most men do, so she's scary/intimidating, don't vote for her" thing? Geez...

This is a common right wing talking point. They did the same thing with Edwards when he bought his big house here in North Carolina. They did the same thing will Al Gore's electricity bill. Essentially, if liberals don't live down to conservative stereotypes of liberals then we are hypocrites. Nevermind the greatest liberal president in American history, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was insanely rich and a member of American aristocracy. That didn't stop him from implementing a whole host of anti-poverty measures.

Unfortunately, the poor lobby will always be underfunded, so we have to rely on rich people with consciences.

Cara,

Agreed. Although I'm sure some people will use it to push class divisions (oy...do we need more divisiveness?)

From what I've heard so far Bill has a few issues with companies a few companies which paid him millions for unknown amounts of work. Otherwise, it appears that Bill makes obscene amounts of money for public speaking, they both make lots from their books and she has her senate income.

I was talking about this with my parents yesterday actually and I agree with you guys. I don't care how much money she makes, I care about her policies and what kind of president she'll be. That's what matters to me.
And my parents mentioned something I found very interesting. They said that Obama's tax return numbers looked a lot like those of the Clinton's BEFORE Bill ran for president in 1992.
And is anyone really shocked at the fact that the Clinton's are rich? I mean really????

As Wayne Dyer says, my (her, your, anyone's) being poor will not help the plight of the poor. There will just be one more poor person.
It's how they make the money and what they choose to do with it after the fact.

Sorry, but this is all a little too "poor little rich girl" for me.

We all know that our precious democracy bears a striking resemblance to plutocracy when it comes to politics. It's a shame, and while being wealthy doesn't necessarily mean one can't have a good mind for solid progressive policies, it's a real problem for our democracy when experience, skills and personality are all so easily trumped by money: 1) if you can't raise the obscene amount needed to run, and 2) if you don't have the status afforded to wealthy people to be considered a serious contender. Now, money isn't everything (as we learned from Romney's glorious flame out, and Kerry's 2004 run), but it's the one thing you can't win without.

So does the amount of money a democratic representative have matter? Of course it does, especially in the context of systematic exclusion of low- and middle-income folks from critical areas of our democratic process.

I would argue that the elitism that's rampant in Washington is part of why we have such a dearth of leadership on BOTH sides of the aisle when it comes to building the political will to DO the things necessary to ensure the health and well-being of ALL Americans.

As high-minded as people want to be, have we not learned that power (afforded to folks in different ways, but most universally by class) corrupts? It is foolish to think that Clinton’s (or anyone’s) progressive good-heartedness isn’t ever curbed by his or her own interests or by the short-sightedness that comes from privilege.

To put it bluntly, and this is an old, but apt argument, if it had been Chelsea on the chopping block, along with the thousands of poor and minority kids serving in our armed forces, perhaps Mrs. Clinton, as a big D Democrat and without a strong family history of armed service, wouldn't have voted yes on the Iraq resolution in 2002. The same for Mr. Edwards in regards to Kate.

Regarding this specific issue though, a few thoughts:
1) I'm with gathly in that the shrugging it off ("so what if she's rich, they ALL have to be rich") isn't an answer to the underlying problem.

2) Hillary is rich AND has chosen to run as the "establishment" figure in this race. When you have wealth firmly in 9-digit territory and you're framed as THE embodiment of the Democratic establishment/elite in a play for WJC nostalgics and to contrast yourself with your relatively green opponent...you just might take a hit with the populist crowd. Is that really a surprise?

The more interesting conversation I think is moreso about how her wealth may be perceived as "unearned" in some way. What comes to mind first is the fact that she doesn’t have the same scrappy story of a John Edwards (the coal miner's son), Barack Obama, or even her husband (both raised by single mothers).

3) Don't know if you're implying that Edwards got a pass where Clinton hasn't, remember that whole $500 haircut thing? While the popular analysis at the time was that he was too much of a "pretty boy" to be President (barf), he took a serious hit for the perceived hypocrisy of advocating against poverty while living quite lavishly. I live in a glass house, so I’m not one to throw stones, but I do see how that might have compromised what folks saw as his common touch.

I agree with everyone that being rich doesn’t mean someone can’t credibly advocate for the poor. That said, I don’t think these stories are off. In politics, it doesn’t matter if someone’s heart is in the right place or not, it’s public perception that’s important. All this discussion about blue-collar workers, beer track/wine track, etc. is more about who people identify with than it is whether the person actually cares about the issues. George Bush’s policies have been absolutely disastrous for the poor, and yet he was very good at presenting himself as a regular joe you’d like to have a beer with. We know that it’s ridiculous, but that doesn’t change the very real perception issue.

Liberals and the democratic party have struggled a lot with this recently. A lot of people admired John Edwards for his poverty work, but let’s not forget that he had a big credibility problem on this issue. The $400 haircut story got huge play in the mainstream press, and if it weren’t for his opt repeated story about his father working the mill, I’m not sure he would be able to speak to the issue as much as he does. With his rich wife, windsurfing, and failed attempt at hunting, John Kerry was a complete disaster on this front. We already have seen shades of this with the Fox News type dismissing Obama’s “high falutin� rhetoric and his “uppity anti american� wife (it also brings the patriotism card into play). I don’t think it will be as big of an issue for the Clintons, but who knows? To me, the real question is, how do we challenge republicans on this issue?

"So wait a second, they're trying to pull the 'she makes more money than most men do, so she's scary/intimidating, don't vote for her' thing? Geez..."

Good point. I wonder if another part of it might be "she has a chance of getting elected, so she's popular, so she's selling out, so we shouldn't do anything to help her beat the Republican"?

"Nevermind the greatest liberal president in American history, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was insanely rich and a member of American aristocracy. That didn't stop him from implementing a whole host of anti-poverty measures."

Right on!

"To put it bluntly, and this is an old, but apt argument, if it had been Chelsea on the chopping block, along with the thousands of poor and minority kids serving in our armed forces, perhaps Mrs. Clinton, as a big D Democrat and without a strong family history of armed service, wouldn't have voted yes on the Iraq resolution in 2002. The same for Mr. Edwards in regards to Kate."

If they weren't rich (or directly supported by rich people), they wouldn't have voted in the Senate at all...because they wouldn't have afforded the expenses of running for Senate in the first place.

I think it is perfectly appropriate to go over their returns with a fine-toothed comb and be very concerned about where their money is coming from. It's fine that they are rich--I don't think that she can't advocate for the poor and it doesn't disqualify her progressive policies just because they are multi-multi-millionaires. On the other hand, most of their wealth comes from Bill being a political fixer. Yeah, he gets paid an awful lot for speaking (apparently $250K per speech). But does anyone really think that Bill gets paid that much JUST for speaking for an hour? Give me a break.

He's a political insider with some of the most valuable business and political connections on the planet. He gets paid for access and insight. That's okay, whatever, as an ex-prez. The perfectly legit question to ask here is whether those are the kinds of political and business connections we want operating in the White House. I for one do not want that BS anywhere near the White House anymore. This is not a case of saying 'This is a rich and powerful woman, I'm going to hate on her'. This is a case of 'This is a rich and powerful woman who has benefited personally from sketchy connections to super-capitalists who make their money off oppressing the working-class.'

Does this make her a hypocrite when she talks about the middle class getting squeezed? I dunno, maybe. I prefer not to dwell on the internal states of candidates because it's a waste of time. What I do know is that she kept that slimeball Mark Penn around for an awfully long time despite his plainly visible union-busting, free-trade-advocating evilness. I do know that Bill earned an awful lot of money for not much work. I do know that despite her passion for working families, her social initiatives, and his top-notch philanthropic work, the Clintons have done little to challenge the system that crushes those same people. You can 'care' and 'give' but never be willing to take the risks to really change the system. The tax returns clearly show their wealth comes from their entrenched interests in the hyper-wealthy class and that's enough for me to prefer that she not end up in the White House.

i agree with cara.
i don't care how much a candidate makes so much as where it comes from. to me the whole clinton tax returns business is about hillary's not being quite so forthcoming in disclosing this info to the public. of course, she did release the returns and john mccain has yet to do so (shocker!)

while i certainly think that a rich person can be a zealous advocate for the poor (e.g., john edwards), it is disturbing that one MUST be relatively wealthy to even have a prayer at being elected president.

what i will say is that despite this tragic flaw in the system, i give credit to those who forego more lucrative private careers to hold public office. members of the house especially are not paid all that well, considering they need to maintain a residence in DC as well as in their home district. i worked on the hill and the (dem) rep i worked for drove a ford focus. clearly he was able to live at a higher standard than the average american, but raising a family on a congressman's salary alone, without vast stores of inherited wealth doesn't afford one a life in the lap of luxury either.

i agree with cara.
i don't care how much a candidate makes so much as where it comes from. to me the whole clinton tax returns business is about hillary's not being quite so forthcoming in disclosing this info to the public. of course, she did release the returns and john mccain has yet to do so (shocker!)

while i certainly think that a rich person can be a zealous advocate for the poor (e.g., john edwards), it is disturbing that one MUST be relatively wealthy to even have a prayer at being elected president.

what i will say is that despite this tragic flaw in the system, i give credit to those who forego more lucrative private careers to hold public office. members of the house especially are not paid all that well, considering they need to maintain a residence in DC as well as in their home district. i worked on the hill and the (dem) rep i worked for drove a ford focus. clearly he was able to live at a higher standard than the average american, but raising a family on a congressman's salary alone, without vast stores of inherited wealth doesn't afford one a life in the lap of luxury either.

The larger point that is being missed here is that it has been a long time strategy of the press to use Democrat's tax returns against them, trying to turn the Democrats into hypocrites in the eyes of the public. This is only a strategy used specifically against the Democrats: although McCain (via his wife) is worth way more than the Clintons, you will never hear anyone in the press claim that his wealth would interfere with the straightness of the "straight-talk express". The Republican candidates, especially John McCain, enjoy a special privilege within the media, and are immune to the kind of vetting the Democratic candidates are subject to. As Digby noted today, certain members of the press corps (like Ann Kornbluth of the WaPo) openly admit that media-generated accusations of falsehoods uttered by Democratic candidates have derailed past campaigns (e.g. Kerry and Gore). Moreover, the press is actually quite smug about its power in this regard. If we truly want to move progressive issues forward in this country, we have to demand the press actually does its job instead of using their position as a massive ego trip that plays into the talking points of the right.

"considering they need to maintain a residence in DC as well as in their home district."

I vaguely remember hearing, several years ago, that some maintain a residence in DC by sharing apartments with each other - so a lawmaker might be paying for an entire home in the home district and paying one room's worth of rent in DC, instead of paying for two entire homes. Did that ever really happen?

I believe that the candidates' income is extremely relevant if they believe in many social and spending programs. If I believed in something very strongly, I would spend all I could on it before I ever thought of forcing other (often unwilling) people to pitch in toward that cause. Hillary and Barack both expect often struggling taxpayers to pay for all these programs. The tax increases necessary will hardly effect them: there's not much difference between rich and more rich when it comes to lifestyle. But the hypocracy does effect the rest of us who will have to pitch in for these grand ideas. They should NOT be rich, but giving away most of that money to put their money where their mouths are.

Well I was pissed off that Bill Clinton's salary was included in Hilary's income. It's classic sexism to assume that a woman is a certain class of level or wealth because of the income her husband makes. It annoys me so much! Both Hilary and Obama are senators, both make millions of dollars off of speaking engagements, books etc, so really both are way richer then I am. Politics is a luxury few can afford to participate in.

Of course being rich doesn't mean you can't care.

But the thing I was most bothered by when the Clinton tax returns finally came out was the percentage they donated to charity--only 10%.

Now, if I was making hundreds of millions of dollars and wanted to convince America that I really cared about poor people, I'd be taking my money and not only donating it to charity, I'd be founding charities left and right. Because as someone pointed out above, how much do you really need?

But I don't see that as a reason not to vote for her.

I do see the origin of some of the paychecks possibly being a reason not to vote for her, but I haven't really gone over them that closely.

And I don't think this would have been as big a deal if people hadn't been asking for those tax returns for months and continually being deferred.

1) I believe the more removed you are from your constituency both geographically - i.e., living in Washington too long - and financially, the less likely you are to see the law and the economy from their point of view. When Bill ran, he and Hillary were indeed the newcomers to Washington with a history of being self-made and a degree of wealth more comparable to the Obamas' today. (Bill won over a working-class town hall meeting when he could name the price of a half-pound of beef and George H. W. Bush couldn't.) But 16 years and $100 million+ later, it's Hillary's political bad luck that she is neither the newcomer nor the voice of the middle class. Being rich doesn't prevent you from being compassionate, but I do believe it creates obstruction of vision and the longer you're surrounded by exorbitant wealth, the harder it is to see clearly. In 2006, Hillary addressed the U.S. Chamber of Commerce with her famous "Young people today think 'work' is a four-letter word" speech, in which she went on to say that they expect to make $50,000 a year fresh out of college. Since she spoke about "young people" my age, I took offense at the remarks - I certainly never expected to land a job at that much, I just wanted to find something that would begin to pay off my student loans. But perhaps that her own daughter got a starting six-figure salary fresh out of college and now works for a hedge fund can account for Hillary's skewed view of what people my age face in the job market. If she had chosen instead to rail not against us but the ridiculous amount of debt we incur as graduates, I would feel more represented by her. But she didn't - her opponent, who recently got out of college debt himself, has.

2) The attention given to her tax returns has little to do with her being the only female candidate and everything to do with her being the only Democratic candidate to wait this long to disclose them. Politicians can be rich, but in a democracy the voters deserve to know if they got rich by screwing anyone over.