by SKI, Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:40:38 AM EDT
In case anyone feels like losing their lunch, take a gander at Pat Buchannan's latest screed: "A Brief for Whitey"
Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings does better than I could at pointing out the ignorance that goes into Buchannan's worldview so I'll direct you there for the details. What I can do, and would encourage others to do is to write Chuck Todd, NBC's political director and inquire why he gives Pat a public forum.
See below for my email to Chuck Todd (Chuck.Todd@nbcuni.com)
by SKI, Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:22:09 AM EST
What seems like a lifetime ago (but was only late December), Jerome posted a piece praising Edwards and Clinton for having negotiated flat fees with their top consultants."
He was basing his comments on a report in the NYT the day earlier (i.e., I'm not bashing Jerome for getting the facts wrong, though I disagreed with his anti-Obama analysis at the time).
That December article had the following assertion:
For instance, if Mrs. Clinton were to win the Democratic nomination, her aides say, she would pay a total of $5 million in fees to a half-dozen advisers -- including Mark Penn, her top strategist; Mandy Grunwald, her media consultant; and Howard Wolfson, her communications director -- for their work on her ads in both the primary and the general elections.
Well, in light of the recent financial filings indicating that Penn's firm alone has racked up fees in excess of $10 Million (add in another $3 Million for Grunwald and Wolfson and their firms) I gotta ask: What happened to the "flat fees"?
Was the NYT lied to?
Is this another game of semantics where Clinton wasn't counting fees paid to the firms of the consultants?
How on earth did she go from a $5 Million cap through the general to more than $13 Million through January!?!?!?!?!