The bulk of their wealth has come from speaking and book-writing, which together account for almost $92 million, including a $15 million advance — larger than previously thought — from Mr. Clinton’s 2004 autobiography, “My Life.” The former president’s vigorous lecture schedule, where his speeches command upwards of $250,000, brought in almost $52 million.

During that time, the Clintons paid $33.8 million in federal taxes and claimed deductions for $10.2 million in charitable contributions.

To me, this is outrageous and a clear indication of the revolving door that exists between Washington, D.C. and the gleaming corporate boardrooms of America; proof, too, of how access is paid for and bought by monied interests, and who — ultimately — has the ear of OUR public representatives.

Of course, the Clintons are not the only ones that have benefited from this revolving door policy, they just happen to be the most recent example of this corrosive practice eating away at American democracy. The $109 million dollars that the Clintons have received since 2000 does not just place them in the top hundredth of one percent of American taxpayers, it places their descendents in an all together different strata — that’s right, $109 million dollars is generationally changing money. Thus, public service in the White House, or even in Congress, coupled with the revolving door policy leading is antithetical to the very anti-aristocratic principles that America was founded on; thus, a threat to our democracy.

Time to take a second look at John Edwards…

An NBC/WSJ poll finds that at this very early stage McCain leads Hillary and Obama, but McCain trails Edwards:

In some head-to-head match ups, McCain leads Clinton by four points (47 to 43 percent) and Obama by five points (43 percent to 38 percent). But — in an interesting twist — the Arizona senator trails Edwards by two points (43 percent to 41 percent).

Edwards, at this very early stage, also leads in Iowa:

Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina and the winner of the 2004 caucuses, was picked as the early preference of 36 percent of likely caucusgoers in the survey.

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York came in second with 16 percent.

Third was Sen. Barack Obama with 13 percent, and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack trailed in fourth place at 9 percent.

Again, it’s very early, which is why the article notes the following:

Some elements of the race have changed since the poll was completed. Vilsack has formally announced his entry, Clinton has begun reaching out to Iowans, and Obama last weekend traveled to New Hampshire.

I think that Senator Edwards has it right, via PoliticalWire.com:

"Running before makes you focus on something different. Instead of focusing on how crowds respond to you and what everybody seems to love of you. That’s not the test for being president. The test for being president is are you the best person to occupy the Oval Office and be the leader of the free world? Because literally the future of the world is at stake here. This is not about popularity and excitement."

— John Edwards, on Hardball

Many will recall Sistah Souljah, a relatively obscure political rapper who was propelled into national fame by then-candidate Bill Clinton’s condemnation of her in 1992. It was a quick way for Clinton to position himself as a "New Democrat" who was mainstream, moderate, and "just like you and me" in his values (that is, of course, if "you and I" are suburban and middle-class.)

The centrist approach worked for Bill Clinton in ’92, but things were different then (including a three-candidate race).

[...]

In addition, Clinton picked a marginal figure in attacking Sistah Souljah.

This is how RJ Eskow introduces us to his thesis, Running Against the Base – Hillary, Obama, and the Democrats’ High-Risk Strategy:

"We’re all Sistah Souljah now." At least, those committed people who form the base of the Democratic Party might be forgiven for thinking that. The Party’s leading Presidential and Vice-Presidential contenders seem committed to running against the interests and values of their core constituents. It’s a very risky strategy – for them, and for their party.

Unfortunately, it is patently obvious that RJ Eskow has it right. The conventional wisdom in DC, in spite of the utter failure of conservatism as a governing force, is that to win national elections Dems must tack to the Right. This is how one can explain Hillary Clinton’s attempt to criminalize flag burning, and Barack Obama’s thumbing his nose at the activist base of the party by endorsing Joe Liberman, while the grassroots rallies around Ned Lamont (Liberman’s challenger in the primaries). And, of course, there was Senator Obama’s post at DailyKos.com where he, more or less, scolded the vocal base and urged that cooler heads and civility must prevail — now, of course, it’s hard to argue against that… I mean, who would prefer the opposite, right?

As RJ Eskow explains, aside from appearing cynical, opportunistic and unprincipled, treating the Dem base as Sistah Souljahs is risky:

There are number of risks for the party here. One is the fact that Presidential elections are decided far more on the basis of character and trust than are other elections. Like most voters, I’m more comfortable with a politician who sincerely disagrees with me about an issue (even a critical one like Iraq) than I am with one who appears calculating and cynical in the pursuit of my vote.

Another concern is having an energized base. The Democratic base may not perceive a "clear and present danger" in ’08 the way they did in ’04.

Now, in a fair and rational world one could easily respond to being treated like this by one’s representatives by simply saying, Fine, I’ll just take my vote elsewhere — to another party. Unfortunately, we live in a two-party winner-take-all system; thus, given practical realities, all we’ve got are the Dems — for better or for worse. It is because of this that Matt Stoller’s suggestion, which basically calls for progressives/liberals to assert ourselves in the Dem party, must be taken seriously. As Matt suggests, not now, but progressives/liberals must start to challenge the entrenched establishment/centrist interests during the primaries and, too, we must build a competing infrastructure within the party if progressives are to control the Democratic policy apparatus.

Sure, going after Sistah Souljah may have had some short-term pay off for Bill Clinton. However, over time, his system of triangulation, proved to be nothing more than a political Band-Aid; because, as we know, while Bill Clinton governed successfully, his tenure in office did not help nurture the progressive movement/grassroots, which is what would’ve been necessary to build a long-term governing coalition to challenge the then ascending Republican coalition. Rather, Bill Clinton chose to side with the corporatist of the DLC and, too, put all his eggs in the new-economy-workforce basket to be the new base of the Democratic Party.

In 2008 we’ll see just how far to the right some opportunist politicians are willing to go. In the meantime, I hope that we, progressives, take Matt’s suggestion to heart and begin to elbow our way to the table — it’s the only that party insiders will begin to pay any attention to us.