Kick Hillary Bandwagon

Another take on the "Kick Hillary" bandwagon. The New York Times reported this story, about the exhorbitant expenses of the Clinton campaign.

It's a hit piece, making Hillary look reckless with money, and donors and supporters sound worried and disappointed.

It's only later in the piece—after working up a good sense of disgust for Hillary's financial malfeasance, do they note that Obama actually spent just as much for the same things she did.

The facts: Hillary is spending a lot to run for president. Donors, who see their candidate losing, wonder if spending all that money was worth it. (Wow, there's an unbelievable, unsupportable, unconscionable thought!) Obama spent at least as much—on pretty much the same stuff.

The implication: Hillary is a spendthrift; her donors feel ripped off. Obama is a lot more responsible and his donors are happy and keep giving him money.

How do these assholes sleep at night?

And why are they putting me in a position to defend and feel sorry for Lady MacBeth?

That even makes me madder.

Don't get me wrong, Hillary was the beneficiary of just this sort of yellow journalism for years, which I found equally reprehensible. But the noticeable turbulence created by the "before/after" switcheroo pulled on her exposes what some people find a littler harder to see in the soothing, untroubled, unchanging pro-Liberal/anti-Conservative bias as it is usually presented.

The Gunslinger