http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/11387Hillary Clinton and the Ghosts of 2006
"Maybe Hillary Clinton's right that going back to the candidates' past illuminates their character. I'm not sure we need to know whether they spilled their milk in kindergarten, but let's look at the 2006 election. Barack Obama's Hope Fund PAC, Hillary claims, deliberately contributed to candidates in key early primary states that year, with the aim of securing their later support. Never mind that the Hope Fund gave to a broad spectrum of candidates--including, oddly, Hillary herself. If she really wants Democratic voters to judge their potential nominees on their 2006 choices, she may not like the judgments they make.
2006 was a Democratic opportunity, and grassroots supporters dug deep and then deeper to finance an ever-expanding array of competitive races. Hillary, meanwhile, made a conscious decision to raise $52 million for a Senate campaign that she could have won in her pajamas, spent $40.8 million (to beat a token opponent who spent less than $6 million), and transferred the rest to her presidential campaign."
The article goes on about Hillary's "loyalty" to fellow Dems. :blink:
They all do it. Some are just "better" at it:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...ack=1&cset=trueClinton rolls a sizable pork barrel
(Yes, Clinton is NOT my choice for the Democrat candidate for president. I believe it is a real stretch to call her a Democrat)