Every industry or discipline develops its own jargon, complete with amusing euphemisms, and politics is no exception. For example, in politics a “friend” is someone I do not particularly care for but circumstances require me to tolerate. A “dear friend” is someone I actively dislike but the situation demands that I be civil. A “dear, dear friend” is a person whose throat I would like to cut with my own fingernails but the exigencies of my campaign force me to accommodate.
In that spirit, the Obamas have just written $4600 in checks as a donation to help retire the campaign debt of Hillary Clinton… their dear, dear friend.
From there they went together to do a Unity Rally in Unity, New Hampshire. Keep your friends close, they say, and your enemies closer.
The thing that gets me is the spectacular cheesiness of asking the guy who beat you to help pay your bill. That money was spent in trying to defeat him and much of it bought advertisements explaining just how embarrassingly he was unqualified. In addition to taking its toll directly, that expenditure caused Obama to spend more in fighting back. Since he was raising more, he probably used that advantage by outspending her proportionately.
She owes twenty million, we are told, and he has undertaken to help her raise ten. If that ten million bought attack ads, he probably spent fifteen million to respond. On top of paying to rebuff her assault, he is leveraged into subsidizing the assault itself. So had she quit like a mentsch when she ran out of funds, he would have had less aggravation, more time to campaign against McCain, and an additional 25 million in his coffers. As someone who is rooting against Obama in the election, I am happy to see his war chest ransacked. Still, the gall of the thing is remarkable.
Add to this the fact that the Clintons have amassed 107 million dollars in personal wealth since leaving the White House, according to their tax returns. They are entitled to raise funds to run for office just like anybody else and they do not have to bankroll their entire candidacy out of pocket. Yet the decent move would have been to either drop out when broke or pony up at the end. Instead people are asked to donate for a cause already lost.
On top of everything else, the fact that Clinton is a sitting Senator puts undue pressure on donors to retroactively bankroll her failed Presidential adventure. She can do enough favors in her present office to make her worth cultivating as an ally. There are actually certain businesses that can benefit more from a friendly Senator, who can produce votes on immediate legislation, than from a friendly President. So just as Hillary cheated by campaigning for Senator out of an executive branch airplane provided to her as First Lady, she now gets to cheat again by fund-raising as Senator for her shot at the Presidency.
Of course, all the players here are Democrats, who live to spend other people’s money. Making people donate to you for the privilege of having you in office to tax them is the ultimate scam, a tax tax. True, liberals usually prefer to hide behind Uncle Sam to do the collecting so they can do the spending, and campaigns force them to ask people directly for money. Republicans can only hope that voters wise up to this someday.
All in all, I permit myself a gloating chuckle to watch collecting, and giving, for a Clinton candidacy already down the drain. It reminds me of that classic gag about the man who flopped all his life, tanking business after business. Finally, to put an exclamation point on this life of futility, he dies when he is run over by a delivery truck. As it happens, the company behind the truck has deep pockets, so the widow and orphans are able to collect millions on a lawsuit.
When the money comes rolling in, the widow turns to her children and sighs: “Poor Dad. Just when we finally make some nice money, he is no longer around to enjoy it.” If Democrat campaigns can help their collections by losing, who am I to get in their way? After all, they are dear, dear friends of mine.