I'm not sure she may be able to relate very well

I think free-enterprise is good.  When Dick Cheney was VP he was asked about unemployment/under employment and made a rather astounding observation that there were 600,000+ people making a living off selling on e-Bay. I thought that rather odd so I checked it out.  As usual, Mr. Cheney's "I'm an outright liar" meter went to 10.  Nevertheless there is some truth to it all - that eBay is fantastically profitable to some;  Meg Whitman the former CEO for example.

Meg wants to be the next Governor of California. To do that she has spent more than any other politician in American history - even more that Steve Forbes' run at the presidency where he spent 100 million in pursuit of 1% of the primary vote. Meg is doing better in California as you can't move or breath there without running into her name.

On this same day, the government announced that 95,000 more people than last year at this time were losing their homes.  It appears that at least the normal percentage are in California if not more as that state has enormous problems.  I'm not suggesting that Meg forgo her ambitions to be Governor.  She is entitled to run of course. It is her right.

I am bothered that someone (AUTHOR'S MESSAGE HERE PAY ATTENTION) that someone uses her own funds to this extent and does so with a hidden motive. That motive is that if "she goes to the voters for donations, and doesn't raise boatloads of money across the population base then the contributors define her" either by lack of giving or getting money only from the uberrich. So much more private to cough up the dough from Mr. Cheney's at home worker-bees than rely on out of work at home worker bees. 

Get the point?