In 1059 In nomine Domini placed the election of the pope solely in the hands of the Cardinal Bishops of Rome - removing the ability of the Holy Roman Emperor or other European Nobility from naming a pope of their choosing.
From what I understand in that year the Papacy also gave itself the right to grant land in exchange for feudal obligations to Rome [1]
Following Dicatus Papae in 1075, Pope Gregory VII received this letter from Henry IV - Holy Roman Emperor at the time - accusing him of being a "false monk" and reacting to the tenets of the Dicatus Papae, notably the power to depose an emperor (of the Holy Roman Empire) badly;
"As if we had received our kingdom from thee! As if the kingdom and the empire were in thine and not in God's hand! And this although our Lord Jesus Christ did call us to the kingdom, did not, however, call thee to the priesthood."
Gregory called for a Crusade but became embroiled with the Holy Roman Emperor as per the above, and subsequently could not push through a proper campaign, it would seem.
In 1079, again under Gregory VII, we have a document pointing to the start of formal financing for the Papacy, and in 1095 we have the first example of a Pope appropriating funds for the Papacy through procuratio canonica [2]
In 1095 Urban II made a speech at the Council of Clermont in which he said the following.
"Let hatred therefore depart from among you, let your quarrels end, let wars cease, and let all dissensions and controversies slumber. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulcher-, wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves. That land which, as the Scripture says, `floweth with milk and honey' was given by God into the power of the children of Israel. Jerusalem is the center of the earth; the land is fruitful above all others, like another paradise of delights."
This primary source points to Urban uniting European nobility against a common foe in exchange for land and riches - the speech contains the same inherent message that Gregory/Hildebrand had conveyed 21 years prior.
The results of the early crusades were lands in the hands of leaders who were politically indebted to the Papacy, and Papal Legates such as Dagobert of Pisa, attempting to directly take the Holy Lands for the Papacy and to turn said lands into Theocratic States [3], amongst other things.
It would appear that not all European leaders were warm to the idea of a strong independent Pope at the time, as displayed by the Holy Roman Emperor's letter and actions.
It would also appear that through the steps mentioned above the Papacy consolidated resources and power throughout the latter part of the 11th Century under the guidance of Hildebrand/Gregory VII.
Subsequently: Where the Crusades part of a plan by Gregory VII to enrich and empower the Papacy from the very beginning?
[1: Peter Partner, The Lands of St. Peter, 1972, p. 122]
[2: Rosamond McKitterick, David Edward Luscombe, The New Cambridge Medieval History: pts. 1-2. c. 1024-c. 1198 p. 406]
[3: Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades: Volume 1, The First Crusade, 1951, p. 325]
Political capital, certainly. That the pope was able to set in motion such a process, even while an imperially-backed antipope held the city of Rome, was a great demonstration to contemporaries of the importance of the papacy. On the other hand, it did send all its supporters to the East. Whether or not this was intentional is not a matter on which I feel qualified to comment. However, I'm hard-pressed to see crusading as a financial boon for the papacy. This not an argument that I am aware has been made.
Some other points.
In 1059 In nomine Domini placed the election of the pope solely in the hands of the Cardinal Bishops of Rome - removing the ability of the Holy Roman Emperor or other European Nobility from naming a pope of their choosing
I would note that Hildebrand was made Gregory VII by acclaim of the people.
Following Dicatus Papae in 1075, Pope Gregory VII received this letter from Henry IV
The Dictatus papae were not published and it is unclear to what use, if any, they were put. It would be unwise to attempt to link them with Henry's letter.
Gregory called for a Crusade but became embroiled with the Holy Roman Emperor as per the above
In the document you cite, note the quotation marks around "crusade". This would be a rather extreme reading of what Gregory actually did, and one that could only be made with the benefit of hindsight.
In 1095 Urban II made a speech at the Council of Clermont in which he said the following.
There are no accounts of Urban II's speech which were written down before the success of the First Crusade, and the one you give is only one of several different versions. It is unlikely that Urban actually said anything of the sort, and much ink has been spilled attempting to extract the truth, with little success in generating historical consensus.
It would appear that not all European leaders were warm to the idea of a strong independent Pope at the time, as displayed by the Holy Roman Emperor's letter and actions.
This is certainly true - we're talking about the height of the Investiture Controversy.
It would also appear that through the steps mentioned above the Papacy consolidated resources and power throughout the latter part of the 11th Century under the guidance of Hildebrand/Gregory VII.
This isn't so firm. Gregory certainly laid down the claims for papal supremacy the most clearly, but you need to also remember that when Gregory died, it looked like he had lost the fight with the HRE.
If you want to pursue this further, here's some suggested reading:
On the Crusades - I prefer Riley-Smith. Madden seems to be dead set on linking the Crusades to 9/11.
Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Crusades: A Short History. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005.
Madden, Thomas F. The New Concise History of the Crusades. 2nd ed. Critical Issues in History. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006.
On the Development of Papal Power - The Ullmann/Barraclough debate over the intentionality behind the growth of papal power is one of the most famous ones in medieval historiography. Richard's excellent microhistory, however, approaches closest to the correct answer.
Richards, Jeffrey. The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages, 476-752. London ; Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979.
Barraclough, Geoffrey. The Medieval Papacy. Library of World Civilization. New York: W.W. Norton, 1979.
Ullmann, Walter. The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in the Ideological Relation of Clerical to Lay Power. 3d ed. London: Methuen, 1970.
The Dictatus Papae - Most of the sources on this subject are in German, but here are a few in English
Robinson, Ian S. “‘Periculosus Homo’: Pope Gregory VII and Episcopal Authority.” Viator 9 (1978): 103–31.
Gilchrist, J.T. “Gregory VII and the Juristic Sources of His Ideology.” Studia Gratiana 12 (1967): 3–37.
Gilchrist, J.T. “Canon Law Aspects of the Eleventh Century Gregorian Reform Programme.” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 13 (1962): 21–38.
Ullmann, W. “Romanus Pontifex Indubitanter Efficitur Sanctus: Dictatus Papae 23 in Retrospect and Prospect.” Studi Gregoriani 6 (1961): 229–64.
Ladner, G.B. “Two Gregorian Letters: On the Sources and Nature of Gregory VII’s Reform Ideology.” Studi Gregoriani 5 (1956): 221–42.
Finally, on the Investiture Contest - Though published in the 30s, Tellenbach is still the authority
Tellenbach, Gerd. Church, State, and Christian Society at the Time of the Investiture Contest. Medieval Academy Reprints for Teaching 27. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991.
Morrison, Karl Frederick. The Investiture Controversy; Issues, Ideas, and Results. European Problem Studies. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971.
Miller, Maureen C. Power and the Holy in the Age of the Investiture Conflict: A Brief History with Documents. The Bedford Series in History and Culture. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005.