Letters to the Editor
-
Walsh minimizes "the check."
According to the Clintons, they wrote a check to their own campaign of five million dollars. Compare that to the 14 million they raised in January and you'll understand the magnitude of "the check." The Clintons say they would spend up to 20 million on the campaign from their net worth of over 34 million.
Why does Walsh choose to minimize "the check"? Walsh would rather focus our attention on relatively minor media slights (like the New Hampshire "tears" story) and have us pretend that this sort of media attention is something other than free advertising for the Clintons. Her "critical" approach to Obama seems never to go more than skin deep. Newsflash: Obama is multiracial.
"Follow the money" is always a good idea in journalism. The media have pursued Obama regarding Rezko for a real estate deal in the thousands and regarding Exelon for contributions in the tens of thousands. Fair enough. But, why do Walsh and the rest of the elite media give the Clintons a free pass?
By their own account, the Clintons were broke when they left the White House. Much of their money was given to them in the last five years by the global corporate elite, contributors from Dubai to Munich to Hong Kong, in exchange for speeches and sitting on corporate boards. The Clintons are end-running campaign contribution limits and introducing a large dose of foreign capital into a US campaign for president. It's not enough that foreigners own our debt; now they own our electoral system. As recently as this past December, Bill Clinton himself acknowledged it would be wrong to use their personal fortune this way.
Walsh avoids the issue because it undercuts the elite media's argument that the Clintons are for the lower class and Obama is for "latte liberals." In reality, the Clintons' de facto campaign contributors are the very global elites who have profited from the Clinton globalization at the expense of American workers.