On Jul 15, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Tom wrote:
It's traditional that primary winners help the losers
retire their campaign debt. This isn't a new wrinkle.
You have posted this false argument before with no
support, simply calling it traditional.
That simply isn't true, as Sunshine Sal pointed out to you.
There have been instances where candidates who
were on good terms helped a failed campaign retire
a small debt. <i.e. 10k> To help retire a debt that was
recklessly and imprudently driven to, say, 22 million
dollars is foolish.
It's not traditional at all, it happens, but it's the exception rather
than the rule, was the clear message from the articles. All the
examples Judy linked to previously also came with big caveats. The
one I
remember best was Tom Vilsack, who pulled out early and had a debt I
think of something like $100,000 or less--big diff from 22 million!
And they were also on the best of terms, Vilsack then becoming
campaign chairman for Hillary in Iowa, a state she seemed destined
to breeze through at that point, giving her every reason in the world
to reward him as it seemed that he was doing "a heck of a job."
Well, we all know how *that* turned out. :) Would have loved
to hear the conversation between them the morning after she
lost so badly she came in third.
Sal
