On our own: why is no one commenting on the weirdness of Senator Clinton loaning $5 million to her own campaign. We know that she had to hustle to get a grip on the upper middle class as a governor's wife, corporate lawyer and cattle-futures speculator. We know that she wrote books that made a lot of royalties, ostensibly donated to charity. We know that Senators and Presidents make low six figures. We know that her husband is the world's best paid public speaker. We assume that she and Bill maintain some separate assets (and other separate stuff), given the nature of their relationship. So we figure that she has some money but isn't rich the way a lot of politicians, who were born to money (cf. any Kennedy) or had big business interests (cf. any Bush) before entering politics, are rich.
We know that she desperately wants to be POTUS.
But she's willing to part with $5 million of her own swag, wherever it came from, to try to do it? How desperate is she, anyway?
With Peggy Noonan: what will Senator Clinton do now that she's losing? Is she capable of doing what Romney did? Or will she destroy herself and damage her party in what's starting to look like certain defeat?
On our own again: it's widely assumed at this moment that Senator Clinton has a decent chance to defeat Senator Obama in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Is this because old-line, lunch-bucket, union-member, factory-worker, white Democrats won't vote for the black guy? So is Senator Clinton willing to become the Democrat who revives the party's segregationist roots?
3 comments:
A NYTimes piece about how nasty Hilary's end game could get
Fuel for your fire I suppose, but I really can't stand her. Although didn't you cite her as the best of the democratic offerings?
Seems you've come around a bit on Obama?
The Hildabeast, if elected, will have to move to the center and has to us appeared more predisposed to that reality than other candidates of her party. See new post above.
We think Obama is the best politician in America. We could vote for him if he would break away from the orthodoxies of his party to advocate positions that were better informed by the economic and social realities that are better grasped by the right. If he's nominated, maybe he can ignore his party's base and do that. In the meantime, he's either a complete policy cipher or the most attractive and opaque avatar of standard Democratic Party positions too disconnected from reality to be viable.
"realities" we could have a long discussion about that.
For now, thanks as always for your thoughts.
Post a Comment