Hillary Clinton spent upwards of $30 million for her re-election campaign against an opponent whose name no one seems to remember or even knew. This and more, according to Anne E. Kornblut and Jeff Zeleny in Tuesday's New York Times. The Democratic Daily, a liberal web site, characterized this expenditure as "blowing a shameful $36 million" on a shoo-in campaign. Well, the Clintons have always been lavish with other people's money. And since they've been in New York, at least, they've managed to rake in cash from Republicans, too, why not spend it on their own assured victory? According to The New York Times, Chuck Schumer spent less than half that amount in his 2004 winning campaign and his margin was 4 percent higher than Hillary's.
The problem for Hillary is that she is now on a par with what some of her assumed presidential nomination opponents have. What will happen to the gravy train if Barack Obama steps into the race? Or Al Gore?