Clinton's spending

There are alot of near pre-mortems being written about the Clinton campaign, like this one in the NYTimes today or this one in Politico yesterday, that seem to focus primarily on issues of money. To me, these articles seem to be about apportioning blame rather than really looking at the campaign.

The three threads appear to be a "day to day argument" trying to blame the now departed Patti Solis Doyle, a "consultant argument" blaming Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson, or ad guru Mandy Grunwald, and a "lack of planning argument." Each of these, conveniently, has different villains.

BUT, take a look at the graphic at the left of the NYTimes article. (Java so I can't direct link.) Her proportional spending is not at all out of line with Obama's. I think this way too public argument is about people spreading and dodging blame rather than a real argument.

(PS. With all these money recriminations, we should remember there were tons of questions when Hillary Clinton spent $36 million on her 2006 Senate reelection when she was facing a nobody.)