There seems to be little doubt that the Clintons are trying to gear up to put Hillary Clinton forward for another run in 2020. That would seem at least part of the reason for their 13 city tour. That and money. But when you even lose Maureen Dowd and the New York Times in the effort, you may not be achieving your goal.
Dowd writes for the Times.
She got the duty to go to the first city on the tour in Toronto.
And she said she found herself feeling sorry for the Clintons.
I’m looking around Scotiabank Arena, the home of the Toronto Maple Leafs, and it’s a depressing sight. It’s two-for-the-price-of-one in half the arena. The hockey rink is half curtained off, but even with that, organizers are scrambling at the last minute to cordon off more sections behind thick black curtains, they say due to a lack of sales. I paid $177 weeks in advance. (I passed on the pricey meet-and-greet option.) On the day of the event, some unsold tickets are slashed to single digits.
I get reassigned to another section as the Clintons’ audience space shrinks. But even with all the herding, I’m still looking at large swaths of empty seats — and I cringe at the thought that the Clintons will look out and see that, too. It was only four years ago, after all, that Canadians were clamoring to buy tickets to see the woman who seemed headed for history.
Dowd said she doesn’t quite get why they would act like “aging rock stars” and do this.
What is the point? It’s not inspirational. It’s not for charity. They’re not raising awareness about a cause, like Al Gore with global warming. They’re only raising awareness about the Clintons.
It can’t be the money at this point. Have they even spent all the Goldman gold yet? Do they want to swim in their cash like Scrooge McDuck?
The Clintons’ tin cup is worthy of the Smithsonian. They hoovered more than $2 billion in contributions to their campaigns, foundation and philanthropies.
She says she does get it but then she tweets this:
And says this:
After the White House, the money-grubbing raged on, with the Clintons making over 700 speeches in a 15-year period, blithely unconcerned with any appearance of avarice or of shady special interests and foreign countries buying influence. They stockpiled a whopping $240 million. Even leading up to her 2016 presidential run, Hillary was packing in the speeches, talking to the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, the American Camp Association, eBay, and there was that infamous trifecta of speeches for Goldman Sachs worth $675,000.
Promoting themselves for power and taking in the money? It’s really that simple.
After writing the above about Clinton, she uses it as a lesson to bash President Donald Trump and ‘Republican greed” and to wonder if the Clintons and the Obamas will be overcome by their desire for money.
Trump made his money in business, the Clintons and the Obamas used their positions to get people to give them money.
Some in Clintonworld say Hillary fully intends to be the nominee. Once more, in Toronto, she didn’t rule it out, dodging the question with a lame joke. She carries herself with the air of a president in exile. Her consigliere, Philippe Reines, has prodded reporters on including her name when they write about 2020 candidates.
And Bill has given monologues to old friends about how Hillary knows how she’d have to run in 2020, that she couldn’t have a big staff and would just speak her mind and not focus-group everything. (That already sounds focus-grouped.)
After losing to an orange puffer clown fish who will go down as one of the most destructive forces in American history and flushing the Obama legacy down the drain, that’s delusional. Some Obama associates say the former president has some regrets about throwing his support solely behind Hillary and knows he misread the anger and frustration of voters.
She says the empty seats show the “passing of their relevance” and “it’s a pity.”
No, it’s not a pity at all, it’s about 30 years too late.
But yes, when even Maureen Dowd and the New York Times give her up and if seats are any indication, it’s curtains for Hillary’s 2020 ambitions and the relevance of the Clintons.Note: The author of this article has included commentary that expresses an opinion and analysis of the facts.