Wednesday, March 28, 2007

400,000 reasons Vilsack endorsed Hillary

Just to clear up where I'm coming from I'm not one of those rabid "anybody but Hillary" lefty type firebrands. If Hillary wins the 08 Democratic nomination I'll support her. My logic is that it is not only the person who occupies the office, but the people that person puts around them that is important in the way this nation is led. One of the lessons of the Bush administrations disastrous reign of errors has been that when incompetence and idealism are the hall mark of the people governing the executive from top to bottom the nation suffers.

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."

"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."
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.

Comments: Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]