Wednesday, March 28, 2007
400,000 reasons Vilsack endorsed Hillary
So when news filters down that her campaign will pay off $400,000 of debt wracked up by Tom Vilsack in his failed bid for the 08 nomination, close on the heels of his endorsement of her... I must say that just looks ugly.
Here's a grand idea. If any Democratic candidate wants my endorsement for the nomination, pay my bills for the next year and we've got a deal! ... Actually upon consideration of this proposal, tempting as it may be, I would not be able to prostitute myself in such a manner. However I suppose that everyone has a price, and I'll admit that mine is substantially less than $400k!
How in the world did Vilsack manage to accumulate nearly half a million dollars in campaign debt with nearly a year to go before the first caucus? Looking into my crystal ball, I see some intrepid investigative reporter on the Vilsack endorsement/campaign debt scent with a breaking news story immediately prior to the Iowa caucus.
I find this part of the article particularly ironic:
Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said suggestions of any endorsement quid pro quo are "ridiculous."Oddly enough Mr. Singer is absolutely correct. No one is "suggesting" there is a quid pro quo here Mr. campaign spokesman guy... When something is so freaking obvious there is no need to suggest it. That would be like "suggesting" that America was fighting a war in Iraq. It is painfully obvious. I would suggest that a person who denies the obvious truth has learned the lessons provided by the Bush administration regarding truthiness all too well.
"One thing's got absolutely nothing to do with the other," he said. "They've known each other for years. If she weren't running for president, she'd be doing whatever she can to help retire his debt."
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]