September 13, 2007

Will Clinton's return affect her standing?

This week, it was announced that Senator Hillary Clinton had to return $850,000 in donations due to the fact that the money was given by someone under investigation for fraud. stated that, “The refunds, among the largest in political history, set a precedent that will create pressure in future situations involved tainted donors” ( The question is did the refund and apology come too late? It seems that whenever the media catches on to politician’s mistakes, before the politician admits to their wrongdoing, the apology can seem phony. Take for example when President Clinton was called out on his affair with Monica Lewinsky, was his apology after he was caught sincere, or was it stimulated by the fact that he needed to save his reputation? Now, his wife is caught in a similar situation (minus the affair of course). The media was the first to draw attention to the fact that the donation was given by someone under investigation, and then Senator Clinton returned the money, so was it earnest? Or was she coerced and required to return the donation? Was it more important that she gave back the money at all, or was it nullified because she was called out on the fact that it was a bad donation? It can be argued that this can work for or against her reputation… she did return a very large donation, which can be detrimental to her campaign in the future, but then again it can be said that, she did return a very large donation because the media announced that it was potentially fraudulent money. Prior to this event, Clinton and Obama were tied as front runners for campaign collections, now what? Will this bring down her campaign? As well, will this effect how much they raise by the time they need to give campaign numbers again? Senator Clinton’s return can be beneficial to her reputation, but will it bring down her campaign and then in return affect her standing?

No comments: