They are the types of money grubbers they accuse Republicans of being.

Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democratic nominee, if she wants it. Her recent sloppy and shallow interview performances, however, show that she might be vulnerable should a credible challenger arise.

The credible challenger could be Elizabeth Warren, the darling of the progressive wing of the liberal party.

Class warfare must be one of the central themes of any Democratic presidential campaign. Together with dividing people by race, sex, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. The Democrats have many cards to play, and they will.

So how will the class warfare theme play out with either Hillary or Warren at the top of the ticket?

Hillary’s 8-figure cash-in has been in the news since she claimed to be “dead broke” upon leaving the White House with Bill. We debunked that story line completely, 2001 was Hillary’s Year of Great Fortune, not of being “dead broke”.

Warren’s finances have not been as much in the news lately, but there is a story to be told. From her 8-figure net worth, to her exorbitant salary as a professor (subsidized by tuition funded with student loans), to her house flipping, to her large legal fees representing large corporations against the little guy, to her penny-pinching of the court system on document access fees, Elizabeth Warren’s wealth accumulation could be an issue because she makes other people’s wealth accumulation an issue. Her Cambridge home apparently is quite the thing, so much so that her Senate campaign reportedly required that reporters interviewing her at home treat the home itself as off the record.

So there is a case to be made that each of the two likely Democratic Party presidential nominees are the types of money grubbers they accuse Republicans of being.

So should we go there?

Isn’t wealth accumulation, so long as done lawfully, a good thing? Do we really want to play the class warfare game against the two class warriors, and thereby legitimize the tactic?



