I'm not sure I understand the emphasis -- from both the pundits and from the Clinton campaign itself -- on money at this point. Didn't we just learn that the Clintons have a fortune of over $100 million? Surely insofar as her campaign thinks it's actually the case that money is what stands between her and the White House the family can afford to spend the necessary cash whether or not her fundraising revives.
« Save Us! | Main | Change We Can Wear on Our T-Shirts »
Money
22 Apr 2008 10:21 pm
Comments (78)
Touché Matt, touché. But she does not want to give her own money to Mark Penn, she wants her poor and uneducated low information voters to pay him his $4.9m and pay her back her $5m and pay Wolfson his $450,000. What don't you get about that?
You don't think she made $110m in 7 years by throwing her own money down rabbit holes did you?
the family fortune's not to be spent on contesting elections, it's all earmarked for bullets and whiskey acquisitions for Hills.
Yep.
She is not going to win the nomination, so she might as well have random Americans, rather than her and Bill, pay her campaign's debt.
but do they think it's worth it?
Er..doesn't Wild Bill have any say in how the family money is spent?
Like I said earlier, I would LOVE to hear the conversation they have tomorrow morning.
Even Romney had the decency to put his money where his mouth is and pony up a lot of his personal funds.
Those who give to Hillary can take solace in knowing they are giving to people worth over a hundred million dollars, and all in a losing cause.
Well there's been no indication that i've seen that she plans to fund her own campaign (as opposed to lending it money that is). Given that, I'd say fundraising is pretty important.
I am a little bit concerned by Senator Clinton's primary spending. She appears to have spent more than she has available from designated primary donations. The justification for going into debt is that they will continue fund-raising and be able to make up the difference.
If Senator Clinton goes on to win the nomination these debts are likely not an issue but if she loses how will they ever be paid?
Knowing this I certainly can accept her choosing to spend her own money but would be uncomfortable if she instead gives herself a 'loan'; will she pay off all other debts before her personal loan and where will that money come from? It may be a fitting epitaph to the Clinton candidacy if she eventually loses the primary and we discover that businesses nationwide have unwittingly financed her through the final few states.
Did people get this tired of long primary races in 1968 or 1980?
There's something peculiarly exhausting about this one. Maybe we have too many goddam media sources for our own good. We can drink spin until we're dizzy. Then we can go on comment threads and secrete our own spin. Then go drink some more spin.
If Wild Bill is willing to spend his money on Hillary's vanity campaign, why didn't he spend it in Pennsylvania? You all heard Clinton complain about Obama outspending her 3 to 1 -- in a crucial , make or break election for her.
Did any of you see TV ads ending with the announcement "Paid for by Bill Clinton."
I didn't either.
If Hillary really thought she had a chance, she'd be opening her wallet.
So... What exactly are they doing?
What makes this race so exhausting is the fact of Hillary's downright nastiness, dishonesty, and cravenness for power. It's her lack of any ethics or morality that drains people.
If this were a long race between let's say, Obama and Edwards, we wouldn't be this exhausted, because it would be an honorable fight.
Hillary is one sickening politician, no doubt about that.
Wins in February are nice but apparently the more people see of Obama, the less they want to vote for him.
Is it really too much to expect Obama to beat Hillary down the stretch? Right now, she's the strongest candidate at the ballot box.
I don't want the Democratic nominee backing into the general election with his tail between his legs.
Even Romney had the decency to put his money where his mouth is and pony up a lot of his personal funds. Those who give to Hillary can take solace in knowing they are giving to people worth over a hundred million dollars, and all in a losing cause. Posted by cm | April 22, 2008 10:37 PMI have to agree on Romney putting up or shutting up as the money thing went. As for her funding her New and Improved losing campaign on the backs of lower income angry old white women, I will just repeat it again, it's immoral. She is asking these women to take money out their pockets and to put it in the pocket of Mark Penn. She is asking those women to pay back the money that she loaned herself. Completely immoral.
"Wins in February are nice but apparently the more people see of Obama, the less they want to vote for him."
WHAT THE FUCK??? Your argument would make sense if his numbers went DOWN in Pennsylvania. In NO state has his support gone down after he spends time there. Even after Bittergate, the endless Wright coverage, the debate, etc.
Not to mention, he has a massive and significant lead in national polls that has gone UP with his name recognition.
Sullivan had a link the other day: Clinton loses ground when she spends time some places, Obama gains it.
It's official, you are a moron.
if she loses how will they ever be paid?
Alan Cranston still owes my buddy $300 for the 1984 campaign if that answers your question.
All this sound and fury will achieve little; maybe reduce the delegate lead by 12 or 15, which will be obliterated in IN+NC.
No, no, with this victory, Clinton has won . . . one primary in a row! Clearly, Obama can't win down the stretch.
"Well, it's easier to argue against money than math. Math always wins."
I'm not so sure about that. Money has a pretty good record.
The Clintons are infamous for never wanting to pay for anything. They liked to be comped all the way. I wouldn't go looking for Bill or Hillary to be out a dime of their personal fortunes when this is all over.
Women have been making do and stretching what they have for centuries, just ask your mother.
Undecided is concern trolling, folks. He doesn't have any positive suggestion to make, and Hillary doesn't have any winning end-game scenario, so what's the point of the question?
It's just bitterness -- just a tiny little token contribution to the McCain campaign.
No, no, with this victory, Clinton has won . . . one primary in a row! Clearly, Obama can't win down the stretch.
Any competent political observer knows that wins in Mississippi and Wyoming aren't comparable to wins in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas.
Obama's had nearly every financial and media advantage for the past two months and can't lock the nomination up. He's appears to be a niche candidate.
Let's see what happens in Indiana.
What makes this race so exhausting is the fact of Hillary's downright nastiness, dishonesty, and cravenness for power. It's her lack of any ethics or morality that drains people.
HRC can go fuck herself, but the tediousness of this primary idiocy isn't her doing. The Democratic Party, with its usual political genius, managed that. The byzantine "super delegate" horseshit is an especially nice touch.
Also, I think the Dems fucked up in a major way when they shafted Michigan. I mean, if Michigan doesn't deserve some consideration from the supposed party of the working man, I dunno what state does. More important, Michigan's early primary gambit would've given the totally fucked-up primary "process" the kick in the ass it deserved. New Hampshire and Iowa need to be put in their place.
Undecided, I think you just barf back what the TV tells you and I was thinking of offering you my services as an incompetent political observer to compile statistics regarding primary vs. electoral college victory and show the incredible meaningless of this argument but you are the smart one, do it yourself.
The Clintons have cultivated this cultishness among a certain segment of the Democratic party. The Clintons are destructive and divisive, and yet some Democrats still follow them. How sad.
Hillary appeals to the very worst and most cynical; that is her core message.
$109 million, but Obama's the one trying to "buy" the race, what with his 1 million plus small donors and no lobbyist money.
I didn't need Obama's money to go take off work to canvass in North Philly. And boy, you see places where tearing down buildings upon buildings is measurable improvement, and meet with the really good people who live there, and it's more apparent than ever we need a president like Barack Obama.
But, anyway, go hillary. Seriously, go.
"You know, Hillary's had six weeks to put this thing away. But it appears she just can't do it. In the state that was supposed to save her candidacy, the best she can manage is a 15-delegate pick up."
Blah blah blah. You spin, I spin, we both get dizzy, and nothing changes. It ain't about the spin or the narrative anymore, Undecided. It's about the delegates.
Well I made another donation to Obama tonight. I am now officially over $200, so I can't wait to be able to see my house in Fundrace sometime soon.
Hey, Bubba! When did Wolfson get so cheap? I've read in several places - including here: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/clintons-high-p.html - that he's making over $250,000 a MONTH!
So, the people who blast the political process for requiring too much money an "outsider" cannot compete are patting themselves on the back for their candidate for having more money? Come on!
Join the real movement: The Clintonista Post
So, the people who blast the political process for requiring too much money an "outsider" cannot compete are patting themselves on the back for their candidate for having more money? Come on!
Join the real movement: The Clintonista Post
I know we shouldn't give dumbshits the hits, but that Clintonista blog is awesome. Her best argument against Obama is that she didn't like Michelle's blouse.
Probably just bitter that Michelle has accomplished more than she ever will.
Re So-Called-Undecided's comment "Any competent political observer knows that wins in Mississippi and Wyoming aren't comparable to wins in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas.
Obama's had nearly every financial and media advantage for the past two months and can't lock the nomination up. He's appears to be a niche candidate "
--------------
1) I thought Obama won Texas. Look at the post-caucus delegate count.
2) Winning one state doesn't compare to losing 11 in a row. And, as others have noted, it's idiotic to argue that because Obama lost by a few percentage points to Hillary, that means all those Democrats will desert to McCain if Obama is the candidate.
Hillary's supporters -- e.g, blue collar workers -- largely consist of people who have been fucked like dogs by 8 years of a Republican President and control of the Congress by Republicans. Why would they vote for another 8 years of misery by siding with Republican McCain?
3) The superdelegates are politicans -- and one weakness politicans recognize instantly is vanity campaigning.
And Hillary's problem is going to get worse -- who would waste money on her campaign now?
Don - awesome post.
But, fucked like dogs? I don't know about you, but I just take mine for a walk.
Let's see what happens in Indiana. Posted by Undecided | April 22, 2008 11:13 PMAren't you missing a state there buddy? Oh that's right, North Carolina. But that state doesn't count because Obama is up in the polls there I guess. Otherwise it would count.
The measure of the Clinton's campaign is that Obama has to overcome her massive 20+ point leads in all the states where she is polling well, but somehow, the other states where Clinton has only once overcome an Obama lead...NH, don't count unless she wins, like NH, then they do count.
The logic is astoundingly illogical. And if the Democratic party just wanted to make it's Presidential primary a test of who can win PA and OH, then no other state should get to vote. But they don't do that, do they? I wonder why. The rules say nothing about the popular vote either, but I don't hear that canard being played nowadays either because she is not going to win that either.
So now it is just electability, which is codeword for BLACK!
No spin necessary. Just look at who has won when and where.
Obama had an excellent run early, particularly in caucus states and states where solid AA support was decisive. Neither of those factors will be important in November.
Hillary has dominated down the stretch in the large rust belt states critical to any Democrat for the fall.
Under the proportionate system, Obama will end up the pledged delegate leader. Unfortunately he's not looking very strong at the ballot box recently. That's a conundrum for the superdelegates.
A win in Indiana would really help him out. All I'm asking is for the Obama to show some strength outside his niche.
All I'm asking is for the Obama to show some strength outside his niche.
And when has Hillary accomplished this?
Dear Lord,
I humbly beseech you to take the life of Satan's servant Hillary Clinton, in whatever manner thy, in thy infinite wisdom and compassion, deem fit, and send her on her way to her eternal punishment.
You know what worries me?
That all these Clintonistas go "Petey" when Obama locks down the nomination.
Matt better hire bodyguards. Undecided is obviously lunatic enough to do anything once it becomes clear Clinton is toast.
The fact is, the political base for both candidates is both significant and pretty stable. When the demographics favor Obama, he has won. When the demographics favor Hillary, she has won. He had a nice long streak, now she is having some things go her way, but it's all about the electorate in each state. Neither has been able to push the meter hard one way or another, except that Obama crushed her in the caucuses that she failed to contest. Everyone one keeps wondering why the various media hits haven't killed Obama or why Obama can't finish Hillary. Well, see above. They each have significant and stable support.
That said, it seems to me that Obama is making some progress against her at the margins and she is on the defensive. She is not going to make headway against Obama among the African Americans, young voters, or the activist base. Too many sins in the conduct of her campaign. She managed to do enough to hang onto her base in Penn, but that isn't gonna help her any in NC.
So, here we are. Everyone just has to soldier on until Hillary runs out of states to make up the margin. Sigh.
Is it my turn to feed the bloody troll?
Undecided, please repeat this over and over: Primaries and general elections have nothing to do with each other.
When a bunch of registered Democrats in a state get together and cast a vote for one of two Democrats in a primary, they are not voting AGAINST the other Democrat. They're registered Democrats, and will very VERY likely vote whatever Dem is on the ballot in November.
And signing "Undecided" is just stupid.
^Damn, good analysis. I wish people start lowering expectations for NC, it would really suck if he lost. It's more different than SC than you'd expect.
Clinton keeps repeating the fact that Obama outspent her like this is some sort of moral deficiency on his part, or like he's spending his personal fortune to swamp her. He is spending money that his supporters-- 1.4 million of them-- gave him for the campaign. Does Hillary Clinton expect us to believe that if she had those kind of funds available to her, she wouldn't have spent as much as Obama? It was ironic how she termed Obama's strategy in her expectations memo today as "go-for-broke" since she is the one who is actually broke.
Totally different topic: every time Clinton says that "it's not about speeches, it's about hard work and solutions," she does realize that all she's done for the last several months is give speeches, right?
"[E]very time Clinton says that "it's not about speeches, it's about hard work and solutions," she does realize that all she's done for the last several months is give speeches, right?"
By the "last several months", did you mean "entire career"? Can we think of a single thing Clinton has done for the progressive movement besides fuck it in the ass?
I think the reasonable assumption is that the Clintons view the relationship between their personal fortune and politics as a one-way street: they made their personal fortune in politics, and they are not about to blow their personal fortune by spending it on politics.
By the way, WhatISee is mostly correct. The early states more or less defined the nature of the coalitions and the basic dynamics of the contest. Everything that has happened since then, from Super Tuesday through Pennsylvania, has just confirmed what we learned at the beginning of the process. Interestingly, that strongly indicates that all the sound and fury over various supposed gaffes and revelations generated by the Clinton campaign, the media, and the GOP really has signified nothing. In other words, all that effort has proven completely ineffectual when it comes to actually reducing Obama's support.
And unfortunately for Hillary, Obama's coalition is bigger than hers and the dynamics of the contest favor him and nothing she has tried has changed any of that. Hence, she is going to lose and he is going to win (and indeed for all practical purposes that has already happened).
The one thing I believe WhatISee is wrong about is that Obama did not only crush Clinton in caucuses she didn't contest, but also crushed her in some caucuses she did contest. In fact, I think it is just a bit of a coincidence that many of the states he was likely to win by huge margins happened to hold caucuses, and the evidence from Wisconsin and Utah more or less confirms that view.
Generally, that raises the most underreported story in this election, which is that Obama appears likely to wipe Clinton out from the Midwest right through to the Pacific Northwest. Her complete inability to compete at all in this large section of the country (which, incidentally, includes lots of working class people, lots of swing states, and relatively few black people) is why he is going to win the nomination. And yet because a lot of those states held caucuses (but certainly not all of them), apparently that is enough of a excuse for people to ignore what is actually the most important story of the election.
hillary's best contributions to progressives: vince foster's "suicide" coverup and the corkscrew landing under sniper fire.
Why should the Clintons pay for their campaign? It's not for their benefit. They're doing it for us, so we should pay for it.
She has the golden touch -- imagine what she can do with $100 million in the futures market! Watch out Soros and Buffett.
She also has a Senate seat to protect and after all, we need her, really we do.
Completely immoral.
Posted by Bubba | April 22, 2008 10:50 PM
*****************
Measurements of morality don't apply to Clinton calculations. It's like when my kindergartners try to tell me that orange is a long color (and they don't mean wavelengths).
That's the most interesting thing I've heard on this thread.
Orange so IS a long color!
Apparently Obama's camp will start bringing up the disgusting Clinton past. I disapprove, but I think this will end it.
That's an interesting lead about the Clinton past (though not as interesting as aleks's kindergarteners). Source, please?
I think it's a smart move. Reluctantly and all, but you don't go into a knife fight without a knife. The "most vetted" crap is bs.
It won't end anything, but it may even the playing field a bit. IN could end it. Or the superdelegates could end it. But I fear we're looking at June.
Yes, Hillary needs money and if you go to www.hillaryclinton.com, as she is now mentioning every time she is on the air, you can donate. I've never heard a candidate mention their website so much in the past few weeks. I expect her next move will be to put a bucket on the stage for donations. Maybe sell some pencils out of a cup. She reeks of desperation.
Matt has really attracted a group of commenters some of whom are really disgusting. But it is clearly his fault.
For example: where did anyone ever hear that the Clintons have a fortune over $100 million? Certainly Matt provides no link to the information? Spending more than your opponent is not a moral failing and Clinton would do it if she had the money. But then if Clinton did it, Obama would be complaining about it. That is what politicians do.
And make no mistake: Obama is a politician.
And if you think he is not a politician ask him this: why did he endorse Todd Stroger instead of the reform candidate?
Barry: " why did he endorse Todd Stroger instead of the reform candidate?"
While BO's endorsement of Todd Stroger is reprehensible, and the source of all my personal reservations about BO, he DID NOT endorse Stroger (either John or Todd) "instead of" the "reform" candidate--BO withheld endorsement in the primary and endorsed Todd Stroger over the Republican.
I think it was a mistake (i)not to endorse Claypool, (ii) not to speak out against the way in which Todd was chosen to replace his incapacitated father as the candidate, (iii) to affirmatively endorse Todd, (iv) on a continuing basis to not say anything now. If he's elected, I hope, hope, hope that he gets fierce on the corruption in is hometown--kind of like the Kennedys going after the mobsters who helped them win the White House.
However, at the time of the primary, BO (as a presidential candidate) was not polling strong among AA voters, so the optics of endorsing the white guy over the long-time successful John Stroger would have been bad. And then what do you expect in the actual election? That a Chicago Dem would endorse the anti-abortion, anti-gay Republican candidate? Get real.
Barry,
The $100 million came from the Clinton tax returns from 2000 through 2007. In those 8 years the Clintons had income of approximately $109 million, a large majority of that from Bill's speaking engagements. Now, whether their fortune is $100 million depends upon their expenses, but they are clearly well-to-do.
Also, I agree with everything zaleriana said in her post.
Obama also won Virginia and Maryland, which were straight up primaries, and at least Maryland will go D in the fall no matter who is the candidate. Virginia is more likely to go D if Obama is the candidate. Although Virginia is technically open, because the R contest was still ongoing, crossover voting probably had little to do with the outcome.
It's amazing how Clinton supporters have been wishing away states that Clinton MUST win in order to win the GE, most notably, Wisconsin, Maryland, and the Pacific Northwest, as well as polls casting serious doubt on whether she would in fact win them (other than Maryland, which she undoubtedly would).
As to the personal fortune: I think the reality is that, assuming Clinton uses every penny that comes in from hereon out to fund the campaign, she will still have a $10 million debt to repay. They are wealthy, yes, but my guess would be that their disposable, liquid assets, are less than $50 million, after taxes and contributions. That debt is already a big chunk of their wealth. Also, the chance that Bill can continue selling himself out if she were to become president is highly doubtful. I would have to assume that, if she were to become president, they would realize that their golden glory days will be over for quite some time.
I think she avoided loaning herself more in PA because the optics would be too bad -- but my best guess is that she will loan herself more in $5 million increments as the need arises over the next three weeks.
Generally, that raises the most underreported story in this election, which is that Obama appears likely to wipe Clinton out from the Midwest right through to the Pacific Northwest. Her complete inability to compete at all in this large section of the country (which, incidentally, includes lots of working class people, lots of swing states, and relatively few black people) is why he is going to win the nomination. And yet because a lot of those states held caucuses (but certainly not all of them), apparently that is enough of a excuse for people to ignore what is actually the most important story of the election.
Absolutely right -- the fact that some of these states had caucuses is mostly coincidence. For instance, Washington State has both a caucus AND a primary. While the Washington Dems only use the caucus results for allocating pledged delegates, folks still vote in the primaries. And Obama trounced Hillary in that primary and defeated her soundly in the caucuses.
The real crime is the way the pundits repeat the same old incomplete information. No one challenges the Clinton assertions that Democrats "have to" win Pennsylvania in the general election by pointing out that, under that assume-the-map-stays-the-same-as-2000-and-2004 electoral approach, they also have to win Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon, Iowa and Maryland.
And it's already been noted, but Obama CLOBBERED Clinton in primaries in Virginia (purple state), Maryland (heavily Catholic) and Wisconsin (lily white), so the idea that he can't win swing states or appeal to certain demographics is overstated.
The fact that Obama won a primary in Utah by a wide margin suggests that he has an appeal in the west that accounts for his success in caucuses in neighboring states, not that his success occurred because those states held caucuses instead of primaries. In fact, Obama's popular-vote lead would be WIDER if the western states held primaries, because although his percentage margin might have been smaller, the number of votes cast would have been larger and he would likely have netted more votes even with a smaller percentage margin-- e.g., win a 20,000-vote caucus by 65/35 and you net 6,000 votes, but win a 75,000-vote primary by 55/45 and you net 7,500 votes.
Didn't we just learn that the Clintons have a fortune of over $100 million?
Geez, did I miss a tax repeal for the rich?
Check your paystub, Matt - there is a difference, sometimes sizeable, between gross and net.
I'm all for Barack Obama, 'cause He's for hope. And for change. And He's for hoping for change. And He believes in the audacity of changing for hope. And because, unlike all those other corrupt pols out there, He still believes in a place called Change.
Some people say that Obama is a bloviating gasbag spewing nothing but vacuous rhetoric to camouflage His far-left and racist beliefs, but I disagree. Obama has reminded us that we are the ones we've been waiting for to say "Yes we can."
"Some people say that Obama is a bloviating gasbag spewing nothing but vacuous rhetoric to camouflage His far-left and racist beliefs, but I disagree"
Good, then you're not a fucking idiot.
(I realize your post was sarcastic, so I am indeed calling you a fucking idiot.)
I realize your post was sarcastic, so I am indeed calling you a fucking idiot
Ah, one more supporter of the Candidate of love - the Obamessiah who will restore reason and faith and hope to all of mankind; who will end racism and oppresssion and unemployment and outsourcing everywhere. He will turn this country into a true nation where all of us love our fellow men. And if we don't, well we don't want to know what he'll do with us but it won't be pretty.
You nailed it- those are exactly the reasons I'm voting for him. It has nothing to do with his incredible foresight regarding the war or proposals to slow global warming or a history of providing health care and tax relief. It's because I truly, honestly believe he's going to get Osama bin Laden to dress up as Uncle Sam and appear on stage with Oprah at an AIDS benefit concert held in Austin, Texas.
Again: you = fucking idiot.
Check your paystub, Matt - there is a difference, sometimes sizeable, between gross and net.
People can also invest their earnings so that they grow.
Again: you = fucking idiot.
Ah, how the left-wing Democrat shows his care and compassion for the "working man."
You nailed it- those are exactly the reasons I'm voting for him. It has nothing to do with his incredible foresight regarding the war...
Foresight. You can oppose a war, or you can support it. That's a 50/50 chance of getting the right answer. Hardly foresight.
or proposals to slow global warming...
McCain's for the environment, too. And Hillary.
or a history of providing health care and tax relief.
What health care has he provided? What tax relief has he provided? Handing out more freebies to people who don't work paid for by people who do is a guaranteed nation-killer.
Typical White Person, perhaps your new nom de pleume should be Typical Moron, because that describes the ideas you are peddling. Although I disagree with Obama, to declare he showed no foresight in opposing the war because there is a 50/50 chance of getting it right... such ignorance and poor logic has made me crap my own pants. To even try and argue against such a notion would require someone almost as stupid as you. The only solution would've been for your father to have used a condom with greater than 50/50 chance of breaking, and thus having his seed blossom into such a inanity spewing jackass such as yourself.
The only solution would've been for your father to have used a condom with greater than 50/50 chance of breaking, and thus having his seed blossom into such a inanity spewing jackass such as yourself.
Barack, save me from your followers.
And this was supposed to be the thoughtful liberal site.
TWP, your typical idiocy continues to amaze me. How dare you even suggest I follow Barack Obama. He, like that war criminal George W. Bush, is nothing more than an imperialist, capitalist pig who, like all pigs, desires mostly to suck at the teat of the massive corporations which are strangling this planet like a boa constrictor strangles a rat. I have more foresight (yes, see, you're not the only one who can misuse that word) than to support someone whose highest achievement in life could possibly be to be the American version of Franz von Papen.
Foresight. You can oppose a war, or you can support it. That's a 50/50 chance of getting the right answer. Hardly foresight.
Posted by Typical White Person | April 24, 2008 4:04 AM
I hope you put that in your book Matt. Occupying Iraq was 50% likely to go well.
Occupying Iraq was 50% likely to go well.
No, not 50% likely to go well. It means only that there are two basic choices any politician could have made.
The disaster in Iraq, whatever it demonstrates about Bush's competence, also demonstrates the falsehood of so many basic leftist multicultural shibboleths. Culture does matter, because it does have political consequences. People are different - truly different, not just different in a Kumbaya, We are the World sort of way. If the disaster in Iraq makes us rethink how we're applying the same bad logic to American politics - multiculturalism in the schools and endless mass immigration - then it might eventually be worth the price we have paid.
Not that I'm very optimistic...
Typical White Person --
really? Iraq demonstrates "the falsehood of so many basic leftist multicultural shibboleths"?
You must mean things like "self-determination" and "anti-iomterialism" -- you know, that shibboleth that says one nation should not invade and oppress a weaker nation, because one culture should not impose itself on another.
Oh, and I suppose things like "humkan rights" which says that all people -- even those who are accused of making war against a nation -- are entitled to not be tortured, not be degraded, and not have their caputre filmed for political purposes.
Yes, I suppose Iraq also exposed the fallacy of "having the government, not private contractors, provide basic servcies." Yep: the U.S. certainly showed that a series of private contractors can create a functioning water system, electrical system, and food-distribution network in no time, flat.
Jesus, TWP, I know Bill Buckley is dead, but using the phrase "leftist multicultural shibboleths" doesn't make you smart. It makes you look like a fool.
You must mean things like "self-determination" and "anti-iomterialism" -- you know, that shibboleth that says one nation should not invade and oppress a weaker nation, because one culture should not impose itself on another.
When Ruth Vader Ginsburg returns my right to self-determination, the NEA stops imposing Bill Ayers' culture on my kids, and liberals start allowing me the right to use MY tax dollars to determine how MY children are educated, then we can talk about the hazards of cultural imperialism and the virtues of self-determination.
You'd give more respect and grant more rights to a terrorist's family in Basra than to a miner's family in West Virginia.
But I'm sure you think Ayers and Ginsburg are all hip, right?
Yglesias wrote: "Didn't we just learn that the Clintons have a fortune of over $100 million?"
That's their joint assets. Senator Clinton's share is about $10 million or something - whatever she earned from her books/the Senate. Wouldn't taking money from President Clinton's share be a violation of campaign finance laws, or at least the spirit?
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/returns/
[I do NOT support Senator Clinton. I support Senator Obama. Just forestalling flames that I am a shill for Hill.]
Comments closed May 06, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Well, it's easier to argue against money than math. Math always wins.
Posted by fostert | April 22, 2008 10:25 PM